resolve: Split extern prelude into two scopes
One scope for `extern crate` items and another for `--extern` options, with the former shadowing the latter.
If in a single scope some things can overwrite other things, especially with ad hoc restrictions like `MacroExpandedExternCrateCannotShadowExternArguments`, then it's not really a single scope.
So this PR splits `Scope::ExternPrelude` into two cleaner scopes.
This is similar to how https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144131 splits module scope into two scopes for globs and non-globs, but simpler.
Handle macros with multiple kinds, and improve errors
(I recommend reviewing this commit-by-commit.)
Switch to a bitflags `MacroKinds` to support macros with more than one kind
Review everything that uses `MacroKind`, and switch anything that could refer to more than one kind to use `MacroKinds`.
Add a new `SyntaxExtensionKind::MacroRules` for `macro_rules!` macros, using the concrete `MacroRulesMacroExpander` type, and have it track which kinds it can handle. Eliminate the separate optional `attr_ext`, now that a `SyntaxExtension` can handle multiple macro kinds.
This also avoids the need to downcast when calling methods on `MacroRulesMacroExpander`, such as `get_unused_rule`.
Integrate macro kind checking into name resolution's `sub_namespace_match`, so that we only find a macro if it's the right type, and eliminate the special-case hack for attributes.
This allows detecting and report macro kind mismatches early, and more precisely, improving various error messages. In particular, this eliminates the case in `failed_to_match_macro` to check for a function-like invocation of a macro with no function-like rules.
Instead, macro kind mismatches now result in an unresolved macro, and we detect this case in `unresolved_macro_suggestions`, which now carefully distinguishes between a kind mismatch and other errors.
This also handles cases of forward-referenced attributes and cyclic attributes.
----
In this PR, I've minimally fixed up `rustdoc` so that it compiles and passes tests. This is just the minimal necessary fixes to handle the switch to `MacroKinds`, and it only works for macros that don't actually have multiple kinds. This will panic (with a `todo!`) if it encounters a macro with multiple kinds.
rustdoc needs further fixes to handle macros with multiple kinds, and to handle attributes and derive macros that aren't proc macros. I'd appreciate some help from a rustdoc expert on that.
----
r? ````````@petrochenkov````````
aarch64: Make `outline-atomics` a known target feature
This is a feature used by LLVM that is enabled for our `aarch64-linux` targets, which we would like to configure on in `std`. Thus, mark `outline-atomics` a known feature. It is left unstable for now.
Fix parallel rustc not being reproducible due to unstable sorts of items
Currently, A tuple `(DefId, SymbolName)` is used to determine the order of items in the final binary. However `DefId` is expected as non-deterministic, which leads to some not reproducible issues under parallel compilation. (See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140425#issuecomment-3111802148)
Theoretically, we don't need the sorting because the order of these items is already deterministic.
However, codegen tests reply on the same order of items between in binary and source.
So here we added a new option `codegen-source-order` to indicate whether sorting based on the order in source. For codegen tests, items are sorted according to the order in the source code, whereas in the normal path, no sorting is performed.
Specially, for codegen tests, in preparation for parallel compilation potentially being enabled by default in the future, we use `Span` replacing `DefId` to make the order deterministic.
This PR is purposed to fixrust-lang/rust#140425, but seemly works on rust-lang/rust#140413 too.
This behavior hasn't added into any test until we have a test suit for the parallel frontend. (See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143953)
Related discussion: [Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/187679-t-compiler.2Fparallel-rustc/topic/Async.20closures.20not.20reproducible.28.23140425.29) https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144576
Update rust-lang/rust#113349
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@lqd` `@cramertj` `@matthiaskrgr` `@Zoxc` `@SparrowLii` `@bjorn3` `@cjgillot` `@joshtriplett`
This eliminates the case in `failed_to_match_macro` to check for a
function-like invocation of a macro with no function-like rules.
Instead, macro kind mismatches now result in an unresolved macro, and we
detect this case in `unresolved_macro_suggestions`, which now carefully
distinguishes between a kind mismatch and other errors.
This also handles cases of forward-referenced attributes and cyclic
attributes.
Expand test coverage to include all of these cases.
fix: re-enable self-assignment
## Description
Re-enables the self-assignment detection that was previously disabled due to unrelated regressions. The fix detects useless assignments like `x = x` and `foo.field = foo.field`.
## History
The original regressions (rust-lang/rust#81626, rust-lang/rust#81658) were specifically about false positives in write-only field detection, not self-assignment detection. Belows are brief history for the rule that I understand.
- Self-assignment detection was originally implemented in rust-lang/rust#87129 to address rust-lang/rust#75356
- The implementation was disabled alongside the revert of rust-lang/rust#81473's "write-only fields" detection
- rust-lang/rust#81473 was reverted via rust-lang/rust#86212 and rust-lang/rust#83171 due to false positives in write-only field detection (rust-lang/rust#81626, rust-lang/rust#81658)
- The self-assignment detection feature got removed, even though it wasn't the reason for the problems
This PR only re-enables the self-assignment checks, which are orthogonal to the problematic write-only field analysis.
## Changes
- Removed `#[allow(dead_code)]` from `compiler/rustc_passes/src/dead.rs` file
- `handle_assign` and
- `check_for_self_assign`
- Added `ExprKind::Assign` handling in `visit_expr` to call both methods
- Updated test expectations in `tests/ui/lint/dead-code/self-assign.rs`
Port `#[allow_internal_unsafe]` to the new attribute system (attempt 2)
This is a slightly modified version of ae1487aa9922de7642c448cc0908584026699e1c, which caused a performance regression (reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145086#issue-3303428759). The diff between this PR and the previous one can be seen in 027a1def.
r? ```````@jdonszelmann``````` 💖
Extract TraitImplHeader in AST/HIR
Several fields of `Impl` are only applicable when it's a trait impl. This moves those fields into a new struct that is only present for trait impls.
Ship correct Cranelift library in its dist component
The first commit adds a post-dist UI test to check that Cranelift can be used with the extracted dist x64 Linux archive.
The original codegen copy logic in the Cranelift dist step was a bit redundant, and I didn't notice in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144787 that it's copying the codegen backend from the build compiler's sysroot, rather than the target compiler's sysroot. The second commit modifies the logic to directly access the built codegen file (there is no need to search for it in the compiler's sysroot, in fact when you run just `x dist rustc_codegen_cranelift`, it shouldn't "taint" the sysroot with the codegen backend! Which it did before https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144787) and copy it to the tarball under a normalized name. Thus we get around any similar potential issues in the future, and make previously implicit logic more explicit.
This also fixes running just `x dist rustc_codegen_cranelift` without enabling `cranelift` in `rust.codegen-backends`, which should have been enabled by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144787, but it didn't work fully, because the dist step tried to copy the codegen backend from the compiler's sysroot, but it didn't contain the codegen backend if it was not enabled by `rust.codegen-backends`.
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/145201
try-job: dist-x86_64-linux
Modify `AttributeTemplate` to support list of alternatives for list and name value attribute styles.
Suggestions now provide more correct suggested code:
```
error[E0805]: malformed `used` attribute input
--> $DIR/used_with_multi_args.rs:3:1
|
LL | #[used(compiler, linker)]
| ^^^^^^------------------^
| |
| expected a single argument here
|
help: try changing it to one of the following valid forms of the attribute
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used(compiler)]
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used(linker)]
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used]
|
```
instead of the prior "masking" of the lack of this feature by suggesting pipe-separated lists:
```
error[E0805]: malformed `used` attribute input
--> $DIR/used_with_multi_args.rs:3:1
|
LL | #[used(compiler, linker)]
| ^^^^^^------------------^
| |
| expected a single argument here
|
help: try changing it to one of the following valid forms of the attribute
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used(compiler|linker)]
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used]
|
```
Improve suggestion for "missing function argument" on multiline call
`rustc` has a very neat suggestion when the argument count does not match, with a nice placeholder that shows where an argument may be missing. Unfortunately the suggestion is always single-line, even when the function call spans across multiple lines. With this PR, `rustc` tries to guess if the function call is multiline or not, and emits a multiline suggestion when required.
r? `@jdonszelmann`
Fix macro infinite recursion test to not trigger warning about semicolon in expr
The test cases for rust-lang/rust#41731 are about infinite macro recursion that
incorporates `print!` and `println!`. However, they also included
trailing semicolons despite expanding to expressions; that isn't what
these particular test cases are designed to test.
Eliminate the trailing semicolons, to simplify future work on removing
this special case. Every *other* macro that expands to a semicolon in an
expression is a test case for that specifically.
Ignore coroutine witness type region args in auto trait confirmation
## The problem
Consider code like:
```
async fn process<'a>() {
Box::pin(process()).await;
}
fn require_send(_: impl Send) {}
fn main() {
require_send(process());
}
```
When proving that the coroutine `{coroutine@process}::<'?0>: Send`, we end up instantiating a nested goal `{witness@process}::<'?0>: Send` by synthesizing a witness type from the coroutine's args:
Proving a coroutine witness type implements an auto trait requires looking up the coroutine's witness types. The witness types are a binder that look like `for<'r> { Pin<Box<{coroutine@process}::<'r>>> }`. We instantiate this binder with placeholders and prove `Send` on the witness types. This ends up eventually needing to prove something like `{coroutine@process}::<'!1>: Send`. Repeat this process, and we end up in an overflow during fulfillment, since fulfillment does not use freshening.
This can be visualized with a trait stack that ends up looking like:
* `{coroutine@process}::<'?0>: Send`
* `{witness@process}::<'?0>: Send`
* `Pin<Box<{coroutine@process}::<'!1>>>: Send`
* `{coroutine@process}::<'!1>: Send`
* ...
* `{coroutine@process}::<'!2>: Send`
* `{witness@process}::<'!2>: Send`
* ...
* overflow!
The problem here specifically comes from the first step: synthesizing a witness type from the coroutine's args.
## Why wasn't this an issue before?
Specifically, before 63f6845e57, this wasn't an issue because we were instead extracting the witness from the coroutine type itself. It turns out that given some `{coroutine@process}::<'?0>`, the witness type was actually something like `{witness@process}::<'erased>`!
So why do we end up with a witness type with `'erased` in its args? This is due to the fact that opaque type inference erases all regions from the witness. This is actually explicitly part of opaque type inference -- changing this to actually visit the witness types actually replicates this overflow even with 63f6845e57 reverted:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/ca77504943887037504c7fc0b9bf06dab3910373/compiler/rustc_borrowck/src/type_check/opaque_types.rs#L303-L313
To better understand this difference and how it avoids a cycle, if you look at the trait stack before 63f6845e57, we end up with something like:
* `{coroutine@process}::<'?0>: Send`
* `{witness@process}::<'erased>: Send` **<-- THIS CHANGED**
* `Pin<Box<{coroutine@process}::<'!1>>>: Send`
* `{coroutine@process}::<'!1>: Send`
* ...
* `{coroutine@process}::<'erased>: Send` **<-- THIS CHANGED**
* `{witness@process}::<'erased>: Send` **<-- THIS CHANGED**
* coinductive cycle! 🎉
## So what's the fix?
This hack replicates the behavior in opaque type inference to erase regions from the witness type, but instead erasing the regions during auto trait confirmation. This is kinda a hack, but is sound. It does not need to be replicated in the new trait solver, of course.
---
I hope this explanation makes sense.
We could beta backport this instead of the revert https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145193, but then I'd like to un-revert that on master in this PR along with landing this this hack. Thoughts?
r? lcnr
Check coroutine upvars in dtorck constraint
Fixrust-lang/rust#144155.
This PR fixes an unsoundness where we were not considering coroutine upvars as drop-live if the coroutine interior types (witness types) had nothing which required drop.
In the case that the coroutine does not have any interior types that need to be dropped, then we don't need to treat all of the upvars as use-live; instead, this PR uses the same logic as closures, and descends into the upvar types to collect anything that must be drop-live. The rest of this PR is reworking the comment to explain the behavior here.
r? `@lcnr` or reassign 😸
---
Just some thoughts --- a proper fix for this whole situation would be to consider `TypingMode` in the `needs_drop` function, and just calling `coroutine_ty.needs_drop(tcx, typing_env)` in the dtorck constraint check.
During MIR building, we should probably use a typing mode that stalls the local coroutines and considers them to be unconditionally drop, or perhaps just stall *all* coroutines in analysis mode. Then in borrowck mode, we can re-check `needs_drop` but descend into witness types properly. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144158 implements this experimentally.
This is a pretty involved fix, and conflicts with some in-flight changes (rust-lang/rust#144157) that I have around removing coroutine witnesses altogether. I'm happy to add a FIXME to rework this whole approach, but I don't want to block this quick fix since it's obviously more correct than the status-quo.
Reject relaxed bounds inside associated type bounds (ATB)
**Reject** relaxed bounds — most notably `?Sized` — inside associated type bounds `TraitRef<AssocTy: …>`.
This was previously accepted without warning despite being incorrect: ATBs are *not* a place where we perform *sized elaboration*, meaning `TraitRef<AssocTy: …>` does *not* elaborate to `TraitRef<AssocTy: Sized + …>` if `…` doesn't contain `?Sized`. Therefore `?Sized` is meaningless. In no other (stable) place do we (intentionally) allow relaxed bounds where we don't also perform sized elab, this is highly inconsistent and confusing! Another point of comparison: For the desugared `$SelfTy: TraitRef, $SelfTy::AssocTy: …` we don't do sized elab either (and thus also don't allow relaxed bounds).
Moreover — as I've alluded to back in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135841#pullrequestreview-2619462717 — some later validation steps only happen during sized elaboration during HIR ty lowering[^1]. Namely, rejecting duplicates (e.g., `?Trait + ?Trait`) and ensuring that `Trait` in `?Trait` is equal to `Sized`[^2]. As you can probably guess, on stable/master we don't run these checks for ATBs (so we allow even more nonsensical bounds like `Iterator<Item: ?Copy>` despite T-types's ruling established in the FCP'ed rust-lang/rust#135841).
This PR rectifies all of this. I cratered this back in 2025-01-10 with (allegedly) no regressions found ([report](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135331#issuecomment-2585330783), [its analysis](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135331#issuecomment-2585356422)). [However a contributor manually found two occurrences](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/135229#issuecomment-2581832852) of `TraitRef<AssocTy: ?Sized>` in small hobby projects (presumably via GH code search). I immediately sent downstream PRs: https://github.com/Gui-Yom/turbo-metrics/pull/14, https://github.com/ireina7/summon/pull/1 (however, the owners have showed no reaction so far).
I'm leaning towards banning these forms **without a FCW** because a FCW isn't worth the maintenance cost[^3]. Note that associated type bounds were stabilized in 1.79.0 (released 2024-06-13 which is 13 months ago), so the proliferation of ATBs shouldn't be that high yet. If you think we should do another crater run since the last one was 6 months ago, I'm fine with that.
Fixesrust-lang/rust#135229.
[^1]: I consider this a flaw in the implementation and [I've already added a huge FIXME](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/82a02aefe07092c737c852daccebf49ca25507e3/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/hir_ty_lowering/bounds.rs#L195-L207).
[^2]: To be more precise, if the internal flag `-Zexperimental-default-bounds` is provided other "default traits" (needs internal feature `lang_items`) are permitted as well (cc closely related internal feature: `more_maybe_bounds`).
[^3]: Having to track this and adding an entire lint whose remnants would remain in the code base forever (we never *fully* remove lints).
Tweak spans providing type context on errors when involving macros
Do not point at macro invocation multiple times when we try to add span labels mentioning what type each expression has, which is unnecessary when the error is at a macro invocation.
Point at the `Fn()` or `FnMut()` bound that coerced a closure, which caused a move error
When encountering a move error involving a closure because the captured value isn't `Copy`, and the obligation comes from a bound on a type parameter that requires `Fn` or `FnMut`, we point at it and explain that an `FnOnce` wouldn't cause the move error.
```
error[E0507]: cannot move out of `foo`, a captured variable in an `Fn` closure
--> f111.rs:15:25
|
14 | fn do_stuff(foo: Option<Foo>) {
| --- ----------- move occurs because `foo` has type `Option<Foo>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
| |
| captured outer variable
15 | require_fn_trait(|| async {
| -- ^^^^^ `foo` is moved here
| |
| captured by this `Fn` closure
16 | if foo.map_or(false, |f| f.foo()) {
| --- variable moved due to use in coroutine
|
help: `Fn` and `FnMut` closures require captured values to be able to be consumed multiple times, but an `FnOnce` consume them only once
--> f111.rs:12:53
|
12 | fn require_fn_trait<F: Future<Output = ()>>(_: impl Fn() -> F) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
help: consider cloning the value if the performance cost is acceptable
|
16 | if foo.clone().map_or(false, |f| f.foo()) {
| ++++++++
```
Fixrust-lang/rust#68119, by pointing at `Fn` and `FnMut` bounds involved in move errors.
Detect struct construction with private field in field with default
When trying to construct a struct that has a public field of a private type, suggest using `..` if that field has a default value.
```
error[E0603]: struct `Priv1` is private
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor-2.rs:19:39
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), field1: m::Priv1 {} };
| ------ ^^^^^ private struct
| |
| while setting this field
|
note: the struct `Priv1` is defined here
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor-2.rs:14:4
|
LL | struct Priv1 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: the type `Priv1` of field `field1` is private, but you can construct the default value defined for it in `S` using `..` in the struct initializer expression
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), .. };
| ~~
```
Do not point at macro invocation which expands to an inference error. Avoid the following:
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> $DIR/does-not-have-iter-interpolated.rs:12:5
|
LL | quote!($($nonrep)*);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| expected `HasIterator`, found `ThereIsNoIteratorInRepetition`
| expected due to this
| here the type of `has_iter` is inferred to be `ThereIsNoIteratorInRepetition`
```
The test cases for issue 41731 are about infinite macro recursion that
incorporates `print!` and `println!`. However, they also included
trailing semicolons despite expanding to expressions; that isn't what
these particular test cases are designed to test.
Eliminate the trailing semicolons, to simplify future work on removing
this special case. Every *other* macro that expands to a semicolon in an
expression is a test case for that specifically.
Rehome 32 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/`
rust-lang/rust#143902 divided into smaller, easier to review chunks.
Part of rust-lang/rust#133895
Methodology:
1. Refer to the previously written `tests/ui/SUMMARY.md`
2. Find an appropriate category for the test, using the original issue thread and the test contents.
3. Add the issue URL at the bottom (not at the top, as that would mess up stderr line numbers)
4. Rename the tests to make their purpose clearer
Inspired by the methodology that `@Kivooeo` was using.
r? `@jieyouxu`
When encountering a move error involving a closure because the captured value isn't `Copy`, and the obligation comes from a bound on a type parameter that requires `Fn` or `FnMut`, we point at it and explain that an `FnOnce` wouldn't cause the move error.
```
error[E0507]: cannot move out of `foo`, a captured variable in an `Fn` closure
--> f111.rs:15:25
|
14 | fn do_stuff(foo: Option<Foo>) {
| --- ----------- move occurs because `foo` has type `Option<Foo>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
| |
| captured outer variable
15 | require_fn_trait(|| async {
| -- ^^^^^ `foo` is moved here
| |
| captured by this `Fn` closure
16 | if foo.map_or(false, |f| f.foo()) {
| --- variable moved due to use in coroutine
|
help: `Fn` and `FnMut` closures require captured values to be able to be consumed multiple times, but an `FnOnce` consume them only once
--> f111.rs:12:53
|
12 | fn require_fn_trait<F: Future<Output = ()>>(_: impl Fn() -> F) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
help: consider cloning the value if the performance cost is acceptable
|
16 | if foo.clone().map_or(false, |f| f.foo()) {
| ++++++++
```
When trying to construct a struct that has a public field of a private type, suggest using `..` if that field has a default value.
```
error[E0603]: struct `Priv1` is private
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor.rs:25:39
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), field1: m::Priv1 {} };
| ------ ^^^^^ private struct
| |
| while setting this field
|
note: the struct `Priv1` is defined here
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor.rs:14:4
|
LL | struct Priv1 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: the field `field1` you're trying to set has a default value, you can use `..` to use it
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), .. };
| ~~
```
Start reporting future breakage for `ILL_FORMED_ATTRIBUTE_INPUT` in dependencies
This has been a warn lint since early 2019 and a deny-by-default lint since late 2019.
We're currently transitioning some of the cases where this lint is being produced to a hard error (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143607https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143808 and more)
So let's report this lint in all dependencies for the remaining attributes
r? `@traviscross`
`@rustbot` labels +I-lang-nominated +T-lang -T-compiler
cc `@jdonszelmann`
(Separate question: Why does the "Future incompatibility report" only trigger if `report_in_deps` is true, even if the future incompatibility happens in the same crate, is this correct?)
This also needs a crater run, but I don't have permissions to trigger this
bors