Add `LayoutS::is_uninhabited` and use it
Use accessors for the things that accessors are good at: reducing everyone's need to be nosy and peek at the internals of every data structure.
compiler: Add rustc_abi dependence to the compiler
Depend on rustc_abi in compiler crates that use it indirectly but have not yet taken on that dependency, and are not *significantly* entangled in my other PRs. This leaves an "excise rustc_target" step after the dust settles.
Depend on rustc_abi in compiler crates that use it indirectly but have
not yet taken on that dependency, and are not entangled in my other PRs.
This leaves an "excise rustc_target" step after the dust settles.
Stabilize shorter-tail-lifetimes
Close#131445
Tracked by #123739
We found a test case `tests/ui/drop/drop_order.rs` that had not been covered by the change. The test fixture is fixed now with the correct expectation.
Deeply normalize `TypeTrace` when reporting type error in new solver
Normalize the values that come from the `TypeTrace` for various type mismatches.
Side-note: We can't normalize the `TypeError` itself bc it may come from instantiated binders, so it may reference values from within the probe...
r? lcnr
Rename Receiver -> LegacyReceiver
As part of the "arbitrary self types v2" project, we are going to replace the current `Receiver` trait with a new mechanism based on a new, different `Receiver` trait.
This PR renames the old trait to get it out the way. Naming is hard. Options considered included:
* HardCodedReceiver (because it should only be used for things in the standard library, and hence is sort-of hard coded)
* LegacyReceiver
* TargetLessReceiver
* OldReceiver
These are all bad names, but fortunately this will be temporary. Assuming the new mechanism proceeds to stabilization as intended, the legacy trait will be removed altogether.
Although we expect this trait to be used only in the standard library, we suspect it may be in use elsehwere, so we're landing this change separately to identify any surprising breakages.
It's known that this trait is used within the Rust for Linux project; a patch is in progress to remove their dependency.
This is a part of the arbitrary self types v2 project,
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3519https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874
r? `@wesleywiser`
Minor tweaks to `compare_impl_item.rs`
1. Stop using the `InstantiatedPredicates` struct for `hybrid_preds` in `compare_impl_item.rs`, since we never actually push anything into the `spans` part of it.
2. Remove redundant impl args and don't do useless identity substitution, prefer calling `instantiate_identity`.
As part of the "arbitrary self types v2" project, we are going to
replace the current `Receiver` trait with a new mechanism based on a
new, different `Receiver` trait.
This PR renames the old trait to get it out the way. Naming is hard.
Options considered included:
* HardCodedReceiver (because it should only be used for things in the
standard library, and hence is sort-of hard coded)
* LegacyReceiver
* TargetLessReceiver
* OldReceiver
These are all bad names, but fortunately this will be temporary.
Assuming the new mechanism proceeds to stabilization as intended, the
legacy trait will be removed altogether.
Although we expect this trait to be used only in the standard library,
we suspect it may be in use elsehwere, so we're landing this change
separately to identify any surprising breakages.
It's known that this trait is used within the Rust for Linux project; a
patch is in progress to remove their dependency.
This is a part of the arbitrary self types v2 project,
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3519https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874
r? @wesleywiser
make unsupported_calling_conventions a hard error
This has been a future-compat lint (not shown in dependencies) since Rust 1.55, released 3 years ago. Hopefully that was enough time so this can be made a hard error now. Given that long timeframe, I think it's justified to skip the "show in dependencies" stage. There were [not many crates hitting this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86231#issuecomment-866300943) even when the lint was originally added.
This should get cratered, and I assume then it needs a t-compiler FCP. (t-compiler because this looks entirely like an implementation oversight -- for the vast majority of ABIs, we already have a hard error, but some were initially missed, and we are finally fixing that.)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87678
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #122670 (Fix bug where `option_env!` would return `None` when env var is present but not valid Unicode)
- #131095 (Use environment variables instead of command line arguments for merged doctests)
- #131339 (Expand set_ptr_value / with_metadata_of docs)
- #131652 (Move polarity into `PolyTraitRef` rather than storing it on the side)
- #131675 (Update lint message for ABI not supported)
- #131681 (Fix up-to-date checking for run-make tests)
- #131702 (Suppress import errors for traits that couldve applied for method lookup error)
- #131703 (Resolved python deprecation warning in publish_toolstate.py)
- #131710 (Remove `'apostrophes'` from `rustc_parse_format`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Remove unnecessary sorts in `rustc_hir_analysis`
A follow-up after #131140. Here the related objects are `IndexSet` so do not require a sort to stay stable. And they don't need to be `mut` anymore.
r? ```@compiler-errors```
Update lint message for ABI not supported
Tracking issue: #130260
As requested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128784#pullrequestreview-2364026550 I updated the error message.
I could also change it to be the same message as if it was a hard error on a normal function:
> "`{abi}` is not a supported ABI for the current target"
Or would that get confusing when people try to google the error message?
r? compiler-errors
Check ABI target compatibility for function pointers
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130260
Related tracking issue: #87678
Compatibility of an ABI for a target was previously only performed on function definitions and `extern` blocks. This PR adds it also to function pointers to be consistent.
This might have broken some of the `tests/ui/` depending on the platform, so a try run seems like a good idea.
Also this might break existing code, because we now emit extra errors. Does this require a crater run?
# Example
```rust
// build with: --target=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
// These raise E0570
extern "thiscall" fn foo() {}
extern "thiscall" { fn bar() }
// This did not raise any error
fn baz(f: extern "thiscall" fn()) { f() }
```
# Open Questions
* [x] Should this report a future incompatibility warning like #87678 ?
* [ ] Is this the best place to perform the check?
Add intrinsics `fmuladd{f16,f32,f64,f128}`. This computes `(a * b) +
c`, to be fused if the code generator determines that (i) the target
instruction set has support for a fused operation, and (ii) that the
fused operation is more efficient than the equivalent, separate pair
of `mul` and `add` instructions.
https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-fmuladd-intrinsic
MIRI support is included for f32 and f64.
The codegen_cranelift uses the `fma` function from libc, which is a
correct implementation, but without the desired performance semantic. I
think this requires an update to cranelift to expose a suitable
instruction in its IR.
I have not tested with codegen_gcc, but it should behave the same
way (using `fma` from libc).
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
Refactoring to `OpaqueTyOrigin`
Pulled out of a larger PR that uses these changes to do cross-crate encoding of opaque origin, so we can use them for edition 2024 migrations. These changes should be self-explanatory on their own, tho 😄
