This is fixed by simply using the currently registered target in the
current session. We need to use it because of target json that are not
by design included in the rustc list of targets.
feat/refactor: improve errors in case of ident with number at start
Improve parser code when we parse a integer (or float) literal but expect an identifier. We emit an error message saying that identifiers can't begin with numbers. This PR just improves that code and expands it to all identifiers. Note that I haven't implemented error recovery (this didn't exist before anyway), I might do that in a follow up PR.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #108754 (Retry `pred_known_to_hold_modulo_regions` with fulfillment if ambiguous)
- #108759 (1.41.1 supported 32-bit Apple targets)
- #108839 (Canonicalize root var when making response from new solver)
- #108856 (Remove DropAndReplace terminator)
- #108882 (Tweak E0740)
- #108898 (Set `LIBC_CHECK_CFG=1` when building Rust code in bootstrap)
- #108911 (Improve rustdoc-gui/tester.js code a bit)
- #108916 (Remove an unused return value in `rustc_hir_typeck`)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Do not consider `&mut *x` as mutating `x` in `CopyProp`
This PR removes an unfortunate overly cautious case from the current implementation.
Found by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/105274 cc `@saethlin`
Canonicalize root var when making response from new solver
During trait solving, if we equate two inference variables `?0` and `?1` but don't equate them with any rigid types, then `InferCtxt::probe_ty_var` will return `Err` for both of these. The canonicalizer code will then canonicalize the variables independently(!), and the response will not reflect the fact that these two variables have been made equal.
This hinders inference and I also don't think it's sound? I haven't thought too much about it past that, so let's talk about it.
r? ``@lcnr``
Retry `pred_known_to_hold_modulo_regions` with fulfillment if ambiguous
Fixes#108721
The problem here is that when we're checking `is_sized_raw` during codegen on some type that has a lot of opaques in it, something emits several nested obligations that are individually ambiguous, but when processed together in a loop then apply modulo regions. Since the `evaluate_predicates_recursively` inner loop doesn't process predicates until they stop changing, we return `EvaluatedToAmbig`, which makes the sized check return false incorrectly. See:
f15f0ea739/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs (L596-L606)
... Compared to the analogous loop in the new solver:
f15f0ea739/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/solve/mod.rs (L481-L512)
To fix this, if we get ambiguous during `pred_known_to_hold_modulo_regions`, just retry the obligation in a fulfillment context.
--
Unfortunately... I don't have a test for this. I've only tested this locally. Pending minimization :/
r? types
Rename `MapInPlace` as `FlatMapInPlace`.
After removing the `map_in_place` method, which isn't much use because modifying every element in a collection such as a `Vec` can be done trivially with iteration.
r? ``@lqd``
Suppress copy impl error when post-normalized type references errors
Suppress spurious errors from the `Copy` impl validity check when fields have bad types *post*-normalization, instead of just pre-normalization.
----
The const-generics test regressed recently due to #107965, cc `````@BoxyUwU.`````
* I think it's because `[_; 0u32]: Copy` now fails to hold because a nested obligation `ConstArgHasType(0u32, usize)` fails.
* It's interesting that `[const_error]` shows up in the type only after normalization, though, but I'm pretty sure that it's due to the evaluate call that happens when normalizing unevaluated consts.
StableMIR: Proof-of-concept implementation + test
This PR is part of the [project Stable MIR](https://github.com/rust-lang/project-stable-mir). The PR deletes old re-exports from rustc_smir and introduces a proof-of-concept implementation for APIs to retrieve crate information.
The implementation follows the [design described here](https://hackmd.io/XhnYHKKuR6-LChhobvlT-g?view), but instead of using separate crates for the implementation, it uses separate modules inside `rustc_smir`.
The API introduced at this point should be seen just as an example on how we are planning to structure the communication between tools and the compiler.
I have not explored yet what should be the right granularity, the best starting point for users, neither the best way to implement it.
r? ``````@oli-obk``````
