[macro_metavar_expr_concat] Fix#128346Fix#128346Fix#131393
The syntax is invalid in both issues so I guess that theoretically the compiler should have aborted early.
This PR tries to fix a local problem but let me know if there are better options.
cc `@petrochenkov` if you are interested
fix default-backtrace-ice test
when running `tests/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice.rs locally it gave this error:
```
failures:
---- [ui] tests/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice.rs stdout ----
Saved the actual stderr to "/home/jyn/src/rust3/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice/default-backtrace-ice.stderr"
diff of stderr:
7
8 aborting due to `-Z treat-err-as-bug=1`
9 stack backtrace:
- (end_short_backtrace)
- (begin_short_backtrace)
- (end_short_backtrace)
- (begin_short_backtrace)
+ [... omitted 22 frames ...]
+
```
(note that you must *not* use --bless; we previously did not have an error annotation to verify it was a full backtrace instead of a short backtrace.)
this is a regression from setting RUST_BACKTRACE=1 by default in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134743. we need to turn off the new behavior when running UI tests so that they reflect our dist compiler. normally that's done by checking `sess.unstable_opts.ui_testing`, but this happens extremely early in the compiler before we've expanded arg files. do an extremely simple hack that doesn't work in all cases - we don't need it to work in all cases, only when running UI tests.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129658#issuecomment-2561988081
r? `@jieyouxu`
when running `tests/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice.rs locally it gave this error:
```
failures:
---- [ui] tests/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice.rs stdout ----
Saved the actual stderr to "/home/jyn/src/rust3/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui/panics/default-backtrace-ice/default-backtrace-ice.stderr"
diff of stderr:
7
8 aborting due to `-Z treat-err-as-bug=1`
9 stack backtrace:
- (end_short_backtrace)
- (begin_short_backtrace)
- (end_short_backtrace)
- (begin_short_backtrace)
+ [... omitted 22 frames ...]
+
```
this is a regression from setting RUST_BACKTRACE=1 by default. we need to turn off the new behavior when running UI tests so that they reflect our dist compiler. normally that's done by checking `sess.unstable_opts.ui_testing`, but this happens extremely early in the compiler before we've expanded arg files. do an extremely simple hack that doesn't work in all cases - we don't need it to work in all cases, only when running UI tests.
Detect when a manual `Default` implementation isn't using the existing default field values and suggest using `..` instead:
```
error: `Default` impl doesn't use the declared default field values
--> $DIR/manual-default-impl-could-be-derived.rs:14:1
|
LL | / impl Default for A {
LL | | fn default() -> Self {
LL | | A {
LL | | y: 0,
| | - this field has a default value
... |
LL | | }
| |_^
|
= help: use the default values in the `impl` with `Struct { mandatory_field, .. }` to avoid them diverging over time
note: the lint level is defined here
--> $DIR/manual-default-impl-could-be-derived.rs:5:9
|
LL | #![deny(default_overrides_default_fields)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Without a standard library, we cannot unwind, so it should be
panic=abort by default.
Additionally, it does not have std because while it is
Linux, it cannot use libc, which std uses today for Linux.
Update `#[coverage(..)]` attribute error messages to match the current implementation
The allowed positions for `#[coverage(..)]` attributes were expanded by #126721, but the corresponding error messages were never updated to reflect the new behaviour.
Part of #134749.
Default to short backtraces for dev builds of rustc itself
A dev build almost certainly means that whoever's built the compiler has the opportunity to rerun it to collect a more complete trace. So we don't need to default to a complete trace; we should hide irrelevant details by default.
A dev build almost certainly means that whoever's built the compiler
has the opportunity to rerun it to collect a more complete trace. So
we don't need to default to a complete trace; we should hide irrelevant
details by default.
Correctly note item kind in `NonConstFunctionCall` error message
Don't just call everything a "`fn`". This is more consistent with the error message we give for conditionally-const items, which do note the item's def kind.
r? fmease, this is a prerequisite for making those `~const PartialEq` error messages better. Re-roll if you're busy or don't want to review this.
Begin to implement type system layer of unsafe binders
Mostly TODOs, but there's a lot of match arms that are basically just noops so I wanted to split these out before I put up the MIR lowering/projection part of this logic.
r? oli-obk
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130516
Use `#[derive(Default)]` instead of manual `impl` when possible
While working on #134175 I noticed a few manual `Default` `impl`s that could be `derive`d instead. These likely predate the existence of the `#[default]` attribute for `enum`s.
Revert stabilization of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute
Due to a process mixup, the PR to stabilize the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute (#130766) was merged while there are still outstanding concerns. The default action in that situation is to revert, and the feature is not sufficiently urgent or uncontroversial to justify special treatment, so this PR reverts that stabilization.
---
- A key point that came up in offline discussions is that unlike most user-facing features, this one never had a proper RFC, so parts of the normal stabilization process that implicitly rely on an RFC break down in this case.
- As the implementor and de-facto owner of the feature in its current form, I would like to think that I made good choices in designing and implementing it, but I don't feel comfortable proceeding to stabilization without further scrutiny.
- There hasn't been a clear opportunity for T-compiler to weigh in or express concerns prior to stabilization.
- The stabilization PR cites a T-lang FCP that occurred in the tracking issue, but due to the messy design and implementation history (and lack of a clear RFC), it's unclear what that FCP approval actually represents in this case.
- At the very least, we should not proceed without a clear statement from T-lang or the relevant members about the team's stance on this feature, especially in light of the other concerns listed here.
- The existing user-facing documentation doesn't clearly reflect which parts of the feature are stable commitments, and which parts are subject to change. And there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus anywhere about where that line is actually drawn, or whether the chosen boundary is acceptable to the relevant teams and individuals.
- For example, the [stabilization report comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84605#issuecomment-2166514660) mentions that some aspects are subject to change, but that text isn't consistent with my earlier comments, and there doesn't appear to have been any explicit discussion or approval process.
- [The current reference text](https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/blob/4dfaa4f/src/attributes/coverage-instrumentation.md) doesn't mention this distinction at all, and instead simply describes the current implementation behaviour.
- When the implementation was changed to its current form, the associated user-facing error messages were not updated, so they still refer to the attribute only being allowed on functions and closures.
- On its own, this might have been reasonable to fix-forward in the absence of other concerns, but the fact that it never came up earlier highlights the breakdown in process that has occurred here.
---
Apologies to everyone who was excited for this stabilization to land, but unfortunately it simply isn't ready yet.
cleanup `TypeVerifier`
We should merge it with the `TypeChecker` as we no longer bail in cases where it encounters an error since #111863.
It's quite inconsistent whether a check lives in the verifier or the `TypeChecker`, so this feels like a quite impactful cleanup. I expect that for this we may want to change the `TypeChecker` to also be a MIR visitor 🤔 this is non-trivial so I didn't fully do it in this PR.
Best reviewed commit by commit.
r? `@compiler-errors` feel free to reassign however
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #130289 (docs: Permissions.readonly() also ignores root user special permissions)
- #134583 (docs: `transmute<&mut T, &mut MaybeUninit<T>>` is unsound when exposed to safe code)
- #134611 (Align `{i686,x86_64}-win7-windows-msvc` to their parent targets)
- #134629 (compiletest: Allow using a specific debugger when running debuginfo tests)
- #134642 (Implement `PointerLike` for `isize`, `NonNull`, `Cell`, `UnsafeCell`, and `SyncUnsafeCell`.)
- #134660 (Fix spacing of markdown code block fences in compiler rustdoc)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Fix spacing of markdown code block fences in compiler rustdoc
Two place have misaligned open and close ```` ``` ````.
I noticed these because one of them disrupted syntax highlighting in my editor for the rest of the file as I was working on a different change.
<p align="center"><img src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5de21d08-c30c-4e9c-8587-e83b988b9db5" width="500"></p>
Align `{i686,x86_64}-win7-windows-msvc` to their parent targets
There were some changes to `{i686,x86_64}-pc-windows-msvc`, include them in the backward compatibility targets as well.
CC `@roblabla`
Use `PtrMetadata` instead of `Len` in slice drop shims
I tried to do a bigger change in #134297 which didn't work, so here's the part I really wanted: Removing another use of `Len`, in favour of `PtrMetadata`.
Split into two commits where the first just adds a test, so you can look at the second commit to see how the drop shim for an array changes with this PR.
Reusing the same reviewer from the last one:
r? BoxyUwU
coroutine_clone: add comments
I was very surprised to learn that coroutines can be cloned. This has non-trivial semantic consequences that I do not think have been considered. Lucky enough, it's still unstable. Let's add some comments and pointers so we hopefully become aware when a MIR opt actually is in conflict with this.
Cc `@rust-lang/wg-mir-opt`
Explain why a type is not eligible for `impl PointerLike`.
The rules were baffling when I ran in to them trying to add some impls (to `std`, not my own code, as it happens), so I made the compiler explain them to me.
The logic of the successful cases is unchanged, but I did rearrange it to reverse the order of the primitive and `Adt` cases; this makes producing the errors easier. I'm still not very familiar with `rustc` internals, so let me know if there's a better way to do any of this.
This also adds test coverage for which impls are accepted or rejected, which I didn't see any of already.
The PR template tells me I should consider mentioning a tracking issue, but there isn't one for `pointer_like_trait`, so I'll mention `dyn_star`: #102425
Use E0665 for missing `#[default]` on enum and update doc
The docs for E0665 when doing `#[derive(Default]` on an `enum` previously didn't mention `#[default]` at all, or made a distinction between unit variants, that can be annotated, and tuple or struct variants, which cannot.
E0665 was not being emitted, we now use it for the same error it belonged to before.
```
error[E0665]: `#[derive(Default)]` on enum with no `#[default]`
--> $DIR/macros-nonfatal-errors.rs:42:10
|
LL | #[derive(Default)]
| ^^^^^^^
LL | / enum NoDeclaredDefault {
LL | | Foo,
LL | | Bar,
LL | | }
| |_- this enum needs a unit variant marked with `#[default]`
|
= note: this error originates in the derive macro `Default` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
help: make this unit variant default by placing `#[default]` on it
|
LL | #[default] Foo,
| ++++++++++
help: make this unit variant default by placing `#[default]` on it
|
LL | #[default] Bar,
| ++++++++++
```
