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.
core: fix const ptr::swap_nonoverlapping when there are pointers at odd offsets
Ensure that the pointer gets swapped correctly even if it is not stored at an aligned offset. This rules out implementations that copy things in a `usize` loop -- so our implementation needs to be adjusted to avoid such a loop when running in const context.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133668
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
opt-dist: propagate channel info to bootstrap
Fixes#133503.
Previously, `tests/ui/bootstrap/rustc_bootstap.rs` [sic] failed during [beta bump](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133447#issuecomment-2501298794) in opt-dist tests. This is because:
- `opt-dist` tried to run `./x test` against beta-channel dist `rustc` through `bootstrap`.
- The dist build produced during the beta bump produces a `rustc` which correctly thinks that it is a beta compiler based on `src/ci/channel` info.
- `opt-dist` tries to run `./x test` on the beta `rustc` from the dist build, but without specifying channel through a synthetic `config.toml`, so `bootstrap` tells `compiletest` that we're on the `nightly` channel (by default).
- Now there's a channel mismatch: `compiletest` believes the `rustc` under test is a *nightly* rustc, but the `rustc` under test actually considers itself a *beta* rustc. This means that `//@ only-nightly` will be satisfied yet the test will fail as the *beta* rustc is not a *nightly* rustc.
This PR:
- Fixes the test failure during beta bump (i.e. #133503) by having `opt-dist` faithfully report the channel of the dist `rustc` being tested (i.e. "beta" in a beta bump PR). This will properly make the test be ignored during beta bump as the `rustc` under test is not a *nightly* rustc.
- Fixes the test name `rustc_bootstap.rs` -> `rustc_bootstrap.rs`. No more stapping.
- Slightly adjusts the doc comment in the test to make it more clear.
I ran a try-job against the beta branch (explicitly running the opt-dist tests by modifying the job definition) with these changes in #134131, and it appears that the try-job was [successful](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134131#issuecomment-2555492215). The two commits in this PR are cherry-picked from #134131, with the test commit slightly modified (to also adjust the test comments).
r? `@Kobzol` (or compiler or bootstrap or infra I guess?)
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.
Add `ignore-rustc-debug-assertions` to `tests/ui/associated-consts/issue-93775.rs`
Closes#132111. Closes#133432.
I think this test case is flaky because the recursive calls happen to hit the upper limit of the call stack.
IMO, this may not be an issue, as it's reasonable for overly complex code to require additional build configurations (such as increasing the call stack size).
After set `rust.debug-assertions` is true, the test case requires a larger call stack, so disable it on `rust.debug-assertions=true`.
r? jieyouxu
try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: i686-msvc
Implement `PointerLike` for `isize`, `NonNull`, `Cell`, `UnsafeCell`, and `SyncUnsafeCell`.
* Implementing `PointerLike` for `UnsafeCell` enables the possibility of interior mutable `dyn*` values. Since this means potentially exercising new codegen behavior, I added a test for it in `tests/ui/dyn-star/cell.rs`. Please let me know if there are further sorts of tests that should be written, or other care that should be taken with this change.
It is unfortunately not possible without compiler changes to implement `PointerLike` for `Atomic*` types, since they are not `repr(transparent)` (and, in theory if not in practice, `AtomicUsize`'s alignment may be greater than that of an ordinary pointer or `usize`).
* Implementing `PointerLike` for `NonNull` is useful for pointer types which wrap `NonNull`.
* Implementing `PointerLike` for `isize` is just for completeness; I have no use cases in mind, but I cannot think of any reason not to do this.
* Tracking issue: #102425
`@rustbot` label +F-dyn_star
(there is no label or tracking issue for F-pointer_like_trait)
Implementing `PointerLike` for `UnsafeCell` enables the possibility of
interior mutable `dyn*` values. Since this means potentially exercising
new codegen behavior, I added a test for it in `tests/ui/dyn-star/cell.rs`.
Also updated UI tests to account for the `isize` implementation changing
error messages.
Flatten effects directory now that it doesn't really test anything specific
These are just const trait tests now, after all.
There was one naming conflict between the aux-build `tests/ui/traits/const-traits/effects/auxiliary/cross-crate.rs` and `tests/ui/traits/const-traits/auxiliary/cross-crate.rs`. The former didn't really test anything useful since we no longer have an effect param, so I removed the test that owned it: `tests/ui/traits/const-traits/effects/no-explicit-const-params-cross-crate.rs`.
r? project-const-traits
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,
| ++++++++++
```
Use orphaned error code 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,
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
```
Provide a fallback in `best_blame_constraint` when `find_constraint_paths_between_regions` doesn't have a result. This code is due a rework to avoid the letf-over `unwrap()`, but avoids the ICE caused by the repro.
Fix#133252.
Detect missing `.` in method chain in `let` bindings and statements
On parse errors where an ident is found where one wasn't expected, see if the next elements might have been meant as method call or field access.
```
error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator, found `map`
--> $DIR/missing-dot-on-statement-expression.rs:7:29
|
LL | let _ = [1, 2, 3].iter()map(|x| x);
| ^^^ expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator
|
help: you might have meant to write a method call
|
LL | let _ = [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|x| x);
| +
```
The rules were baffling when I ran in to them trying to add some impls,
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.
On parse errors where an ident is found where one wasn't expected, see if the next elements might have been meant as method call or field access.
```
error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator, found `map`
--> $DIR/missing-dot-on-statement-expression.rs:7:29
|
LL | let _ = [1, 2, 3].iter()map(|x| x);
| ^^^ expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator
|
help: you might have meant to write a method call
|
LL | let _ = [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|x| x);
| +
```
Also lint on option of function pointer comparisons
This PR is the first part of #134536, ie. the linting on `Option<{fn ptr}>` in the `unpredictable_function_pointer_comparisons` lint, which isn't part of the lang nomination that the second part is going trough, and so should be able to be approved independently.
Related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134527
r? `@compiler-errors`
Restrict `#[non_exaustive]` on structs with default field values
Do not allow users to apply `#[non_exaustive]` to a struct when they have also used default field values.
Arbitrary self types v2: no deshadow pre feature.
The arbitrary self types v2 work introduces a check for shadowed methods, whereby a method in some "outer" smart pointer type may called in preference to a method in the inner referent. This is bad if the outer pointer adds a method later, as it may change behavior, so we ensure we error in this circumstance.
It was intended that this new shadowing detection system only comes into play for users who enable the `arbitrary_self_types` feature (or of course everyone later if it's stabilized). It was believed that the new deshadowing code couldn't be reached without building the custom smart pointers that `arbitrary_self_types` enables, and therefore there was no risk of this code impacting existing users.
However, it turns out that cunning use of `Pin::get_ref` can cause this type of shadowing error to be emitted now. This commit adds a test for this case.
As we want this test to pass without arbitrary_self_types, but fail with it, I've split it into two files (one with run-pass and one without). If there's a better way I can amend it.
Part of #44874
r? ```@wesleywiser```
Arbitrary self types v2: niche deshadowing test
Arbitrary self types v2 attempts to detect cases where methods in an "outer" type (e.g. a smart pointer) might "shadow" methods in the referent.
There are a couple of cases where the current code makes no attempt to detect such shadowing. Both of these cases only apply if other unstable features are enabled.
Add a test, mostly for illustrative purposes, so we can see the shadowing cases that can occur.
Part of #44874
r? ```@wesleywiser```
