Allow multiple `impl Into<{D,Subd}iagMessage>` parameters in a function.
The internal diagnostic lint currently only allows one, because that was all that occurred in practice. But rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12453 wants to introduce functions with more than one, and this limitation is getting in the way.
r? `@Nilstrieb`
Expose the Freeze trait again (unstably) and forbid implementing it manually
non-emoji version of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121501
cc #60715
This trait is useful for generic constants (associated consts of generic traits). See the test (`tests/ui/associated-consts/freeze.rs`) added in this PR for a usage example. The builtin `Freeze` trait is the only way to do it, users cannot work around this issue.
It's also a useful trait for building some very specific abstrations, as shown by the usage by the `zerocopy` crate: https://github.com/google/zerocopy/issues/941
cc ```@RalfJung```
T-lang signed off on reexposing this unstably: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121501#issuecomment-1969827742
The internal diagnostic lint currently only allows one, because that was
all that occurred in practice. But rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12453
wants to introduce functions with more than one, and this limitation is
getting in the way.
Stop using LLVM struct types for byval/sret
For `byval` and `sret`, the type has no semantic meaning, only the size matters\*†. Using `[N x i8]` is a more direct way to specify that we want `N` bytes, and avoids relying on LLVM's struct layout.
\*: The alignment would matter, if we didn't explicitly specify it. From what I can tell, we always specified the alignment for `sret`; for `byval`, we didn't until #112157.
†: For `byval`, the hidden copy may be impacted by padding in the LLVM struct type, i.e. padding bytes may not be copied. (I'm not sure if this is done today, but I think it would be legal.) But we manually pad our LLVM struct types specifically to avoid there ever being LLVM-visible padding, so that shouldn't be an issue.
Split out from #121577.
r? `@nikic`
diagnostics: Do not suggest using `#[unix_sigpipe]` without a value
Remove `Word` from the `unix_sigpipe` attribute template so that plain `#[unix_sigpipe]` is not included in suggestions of valid forms of the attribute. Also re-arrange diagnostics code slightly to avoid duplicate diagnostics.
Tracking issue is https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97889.
MIR printing: print the path of uneval'd const
Currently it just prints `const _` which makes it impossible to say which constant is being referred to.
Also refer to promoteds in a consistent way; previously MIR printing would do
```
promoted[0] in C1: &Option<Cell<i32>> = {
// ...
}
```
Now that should be
```
const C1::promoted[0]: &Option<Cell<i32>> = {
// ...
}
```
We don't seem to have a test for that so I tried it by hand, it seems to work:
```
const main::promoted[12]: &[&str; 3] = {
let mut _0: &[&str; 3];
let mut _1: [&str; 3];
let mut _2: &str;
let mut _3: &str;
let mut _4: &str;
let mut _5: &str;
bb0: {
_3 = const "b";
_2 = &(*_3);
_5 = const "c";
_4 = &(*_5);
_1 = [const "a", move _2, move _4];
_0 = &_1;
return;
}
}
```
This adds four pieces of metadata to every target:
- description
- tier
- host tools
- std
This information is currently scattered across target docs and both
- not machine readable, making validation harder
- sometimes subtly encoding by the table it's in, causing mistakes and
making it harder to review changes to the properties
By putting it in the compiler, we improve this. Later, we will use this
canonical information to generate target documentation from it.
Remove `Word` from the `unix_sigpipe` attribute template so that plain
`#[unix_sigpipe]` is not included in suggestions of valid forms of the
attribute. Also re-arrange diagnostics code slightly to avoid duplicate
diagnostics.
Fix legacy numeric constant diag items
- missed syms for usize/isize
- missed diag items on unsigned integers
For rust-lang/rust-clippy#12312
r? ```@Nilstrieb```
Follow-up to #121272, #121361, #121667
This should be the last one 🤞 Sorry!
match lowering: define a convenient struct
Small refactor PR: `bindings` and `ascriptions` always come together so I made a struct for them. I'll have one or two fields to add to it in a later PR as well.
Add a tidy check that checks whether the fluent slugs only appear once
As ``````@Nilstrieb`````` said in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121828#issuecomment-1972622855:
> Might make sense to have a tidy check that checks whether the fluent slugs only appear once in the source code and lint for that
there's a tidy check already for sorting
We can get the tidy check error:
```
tidy check
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_const_eval/messages.ftl: message `const_eval_invalid_align` is not used
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_lint/messages.ftl: message `lint_trivial_untranslatable_diag` is not used
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_parse/messages.ftl: message `parse_invalid_literal_suffix` is not used
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_infer/messages.ftl: message `infer_need_type_info_in_coroutine` is not used
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl: message `passes_expr_not_allowed_in_context` is not used
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl: message `passes_layout` is not used
tidy error: /path/to/rust/compiler/rustc_parse/messages.ftl: message `parse_not_supported` is not used
```
r? ``````@Nilstrieb``````
Distinguish between library and lang UB in assert_unsafe_precondition
As described in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121583#issuecomment-1963168186, `assert_unsafe_precondition` now explicitly distinguishes between language UB (conditions we explicitly optimize on) and library UB (things we document you shouldn't do, and maybe some library internals assume you don't do).
`debug_assert_nounwind` was originally added to avoid the "only at runtime" aspect of `assert_unsafe_precondition`. Since then the difference between the macros has gotten muddied. This totally revamps the situation.
Now _all_ preconditions shall be checked with `assert_unsafe_precondition`. If you have a precondition that's only checkable at runtime, do a `const_eval_select` hack, as done in this PR.
r? RalfJung
Remove `Ord` from `ClosureKind`
Using `Ord` to accomplish a meaning of subset relationship can be hard to read. The existing uses for that are easily replaced with a `match`, and in my opinion, more readable without needing to resorting to comments to explain the intention.
cc `@compiler-errors`
