Rename Unsafe to Safety
Alternative to #124455, which is to just have one Safety enum to use everywhere, this opens the posibility of adding `ast::Safety::Safe` that's useful for unsafe extern blocks.
This leaves us today with:
```rust
enum ast::Safety {
Unsafe(Span),
Default,
// Safe (going to be added for unsafe extern blocks)
}
enum hir::Safety {
Unsafe,
Safe,
}
```
We would convert from `ast::Safety::Default` into the right Safety level according the context.
Improve parser
Fixes#124935.
- Add a few more help diagnostics to incorrect semicolons
- Overall improved that function
- Addded a few comments
- Renamed diff_marker fns to git_diff_marker
Fix println! ICE when parsing percent prefix number
This PR fixes#125002 ICE occurring, for example, with `println!("%100000", 1)` or `println!("% 100000", 1)`.
## Test Case/Change Explanation
The return type of `Num::from_str` has been changed to `Option<Self>` to handle errors when parsing large integers fails.
1. The first `println!` in the test case covers the change of the first `Num::from_str` usage in `format_foreign.rs:426`.
2. The second `println!` in the test case covers the change of the second `Num::from_str` usage in line 460.
3. The 3rd to 5th `Num::from_str` usages behave the same as before.
The 3rd usage would cause an ICE when `num > u16::MAX` in the previous version, but this commit does not include a fix for the ICE in `println!("{:100000$}")`. I think we need to emit an error in the compiler and have more discussion in another issue/PR.
Migrate `run-make/issue64319` to `rmake` and rename
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
~~I noticed that the Makefile was not listed in `allowed-run-makefiles` in Tidy. Does this mean the test was being ignored?~~ EDIT: No, it was there, just not in its expected alphabetical order.
EDIT2: Perhaps it could be interesting to clean this test visually by looping over the `rustc` calls, like in #125227.
Update `expr` matcher for Edition 2024 and add `expr_2021` nonterminal
This commit adds a new nonterminal `expr_2021` in macro patterns, and `expr_fragment_specifier_2024` feature flag.
This change also updates `expr` so that on Edition 2024 it will also match `const { ... }` blocks, while `expr_2021` preserves the current behavior of `expr`, matching expressions without `const` blocks.
Joint work with `@vincenzopalazzo.`
Issue #123742
Do not suggest constraining the `&self` param, but rather the return type.
If that is wrong (because it is not sufficient), a follow up error will tell the
user to fix it. This way we lower the chances of *over* constraining, but still
get the cake of "correctly" contrained in two steps.
This is a correct suggestion:
```
error: lifetime may not live long enough
--> $DIR/ex3-both-anon-regions-return-type-is-anon.rs:9:9
|
LL | fn foo<'a>(&self, x: &i32) -> &i32 {
| - - let's call the lifetime of this reference `'1`
| |
| let's call the lifetime of this reference `'2`
LL | x
| ^ method was supposed to return data with lifetime `'2` but it is returning data with lifetime `'1`
|
help: consider introducing a named lifetime parameter and update trait if needed
|
LL | fn foo<'a>(&self, x: &'a i32) -> &'a i32 {
| ++ ++
```
While this is incomplete because it should suggestino `&'a self`
```
error: lifetime may not live long enough
--> $DIR/ex3-both-anon-regions-self-is-anon.rs:7:19
|
LL | fn foo<'a>(&self, x: &Foo) -> &Foo {
| - - let's call the lifetime of this reference `'1`
| |
| let's call the lifetime of this reference `'2`
LL | if true { x } else { self }
| ^ method was supposed to return data with lifetime `'2` but it is returning data with lifetime `'1`
|
help: consider introducing a named lifetime parameter and update trait if needed
|
LL | fn foo<'a>(&self, x: &'a Foo) -> &'a Foo {
| ++ ++
```
but the follow up error is
```
error: lifetime may not live long enough
--> tests/ui/lifetimes/lifetime-errors/ex3-both-anon-regions-self-is-anon.rs:7:30
|
6 | fn foo<'a>(&self, x: &'a Foo) -> &'a Foo {
| -- - let's call the lifetime of this reference `'1`
| |
| lifetime `'a` defined here
7 | if true { x } else { self }
| ^^^^ method was supposed to return data with lifetime `'a` but it is returning data with lifetime `'1`
|
help: consider introducing a named lifetime parameter and update trait if needed
|
6 | fn foo<'a>(&'a self, x: &'a Foo) -> &'a Foo {
| ++
```
```
error: lifetime may not live long enough
--> $DIR/lt-ref-self.rs:12:9
|
LL | fn ref_self(&self, f: &u32) -> &u32 {
| - - let's call the lifetime of this reference `'1`
| |
| let's call the lifetime of this reference `'2`
LL | f
| ^ method was supposed to return data with lifetime `'2` but it is returning data with lifetime `'1`
|
help: consider introducing a named lifetime parameter and update trait if needed
|
LL | fn ref_self<'b>(&'b self, f: &'b u32) -> &'b u32 {
| ++++ ++ ++ ++
```
```
error: lifetime may not live long enough
--> f205.rs:8:16
|
7 | fn resolve_symbolic_reference(&self, reference: Option<Reference>) -> Option<Reference> {
| - --------- has type `Option<Reference<'1>>`
| |
| let's call the lifetime of this reference `'2`
8 | return reference;
| ^^^^^^^^^ method was supposed to return data with lifetime `'2` but it is returning data with lifetime `'1`
|
help: consider introducing a named lifetime parameter
|
7 | fn resolve_symbolic_reference<'a>(&'a self, reference: Option<Reference<'a>>) -> Option<Reference<'a>> {
| ++++ ++ ++++ ++++
```
The correct suggestion would be
```
help: consider introducing a named lifetime parameter
|
7 | fn resolve_symbolic_reference<'a>(&self, reference: Option<Reference<'a>>) -> Option<Reference<'a>> {
| ++++ ++++ ++++
```
but we are not doing the analysis to detect that yet. If we constrain `&'a self`, then the return type with a borrow will implicitly take its lifetime from `'a`, it is better to make it explicit in the suggestion, in case that `&self` *doesn't* need to be `'a`, but the return does.
```
error: lifetime may not live long enough
--> $DIR/ex3-both-anon-regions-both-are-structs-2.rs:7:5
|
LL | fn foo(mut x: Ref, y: Ref) {
| ----- - has type `Ref<'_, '1>`
| |
| has type `Ref<'_, '2>`
LL | x.b = y.b;
| ^^^^^^^^^ assignment requires that `'1` must outlive `'2`
|
help: consider introducing a named lifetime parameter
|
LL | fn foo<'a>(mut x: Ref<'a, 'a>, y: Ref<'a, 'a>) {
| ++++ ++++++++ ++++++++
```
As can be seen above, it currently doesn't try to compare the `ty::Ty` lifetimes that diverged vs the `hir::Ty` to correctly suggest the following
```
help: consider introducing a named lifetime parameter
|
LL | fn foo<'a>(mut x: Ref<'_, 'a>, y: Ref<'_, 'a>) {
| ++++ ++++++++ ++++++++
```
but I believe this to still be an improvement over the status quo.
CC #40990.
expand: fix minor diagnostics bug
The error mentions `///`, when it's actually `//!`:
```
error[E0658]: attributes on expressions are experimental
--> test.rs:4:9
|
4 | //! wah
| ^^^^^^^
|
= note: see issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701> for more information
= help: add `#![feature(stmt_expr_attributes)]` to the crate attributes to enable
= help: `///` is for documentation comments. For a plain comment, use `//`.
```
Enable `rust-lld` on nightly `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu`
We believe we have done virtually all the internal work and tests we could to prepare for using `lld` as the default linker (at least on Linux). We're IMHO at a point where we'd need to expand testing and coverage in order to make progress on this effort.
Therefore, for further testing and gathering real-world feedback, unexpected issues and use-cases, this PR enables `rust-lld` as the default linker:
- on nightly only (and dev channel)
- on `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu` only
- when not using an external LLVM (except `download-ci-llvm`), so that distros are not impacted
as described in more detail in this [zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Enabling.20.60rust-lld.60.20on.20nightly.20.60x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.60/near/433709343).
In case any issues happen to users, as e.g. lld is not bug-for-bug compatible with GNU ld, it's easy to disable with `-Zlinker-features=-lld` to revert to using the system's default linker.
---
I don't know who should review this kind of things, as it's somewhat of a crosscutting effort. Compiler contributor, compiler performance WG and infra member sounds perfect, so r? `@Mark-Simulacrum.`
The last crater run encountered a low number (44) of mainly avoidable issues, like small incompatibilities, user errors, and a difference between the two linkers about which default to use with `--gc-sections`. [Here's the triage report](https://hackmd.io/OAJxlxc6Te6YUot9ftYSKQ?view), categorizing the issues, with some analyses and workarounds. I'd appreciate another set of eyes looking at these results.
The changes in this PR have been test-driven for CI changes, try builds with tests enabled, rustc-perf with bootstrapping, in PR #113382.
For infra, about the CI change: this PR forces `rust.lld` to false on vanilla LLVM builders, just to make sure we have coverage without `rust-lld`. Though to be clear, just using an external LLVM is already enough to keep `rust.lld` to false, in turn reverting everything to using the system's default linker.
cc `@rust-lang/bootstrap` for the bootstrap and config change
cc `@petrochenkov` for the small compiler change
cc `@rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance`
The blog post announcing the change, that we expect to merge around the same time as we merge this PR, is open [on the blog repo](https://github.com/rust-lang/blog.rust-lang.org/pull/1319).
Bootstrap change history: this PR changes the default of a config option on `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu`. It's, however, not expected to cause issues, or require any changes to existing configurations. It's a big enough change that people should at least know about it, in case it causes unexpected problems. If that happens, set `rust.lld = false` in your `config.toml` (and open an issue).
