tidy: stop special-casing tests/ui entry limit
It is genuinely more annoying to have this error, now that this value is below the general `ENTRY_LIMIT` cap, when one is trying to clean out tests from tests/ui! This code has served its purpose well, let it rest now rather than force it to continue haunting us.
Avoid clone when constructing runnable label.
I stumbled across this when reading this code. This seems like an unnecessary allocation (though likely small?)
Use correct format for setting environment variables when debugging with cpptools
The RA VSCode extension uses an incorrect format for the environment variables in the `launch.json` when debugging with the C/C++ Extension. This extension uses a different format than CodeLLDB or NativeDebug, which means that the environment variables are not actually set for the debuggee.
What it currently looks like:
```json
"env": {
"NAME": "VALUE"
}
```
What the C/C++ extension expects:
```json
"environment": [
{ "name": "NAME", "value": "VALUE" }
]
```
For reference: https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/cpp/launch-json-reference#_environment
Turn remaining non-structural-const-in-pattern lints into hard errors
This completes the implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120362 by turning our remaining future-compat lints into hard errors: indirect_structural_match and pointer_structural_match.
They have been future-compat lints for a while (indirect_structural_match for many years, pointer_structural_match since Rust 1.75 (released Dec 28, 2023)), and have shown up in dependency breakage reports since Rust 1.78 (just released on May 2, 2024). I don't expect a lot of code will still depend on them, but we will of course do a crater run.
A lot of cleanup is now possible in const_to_pat, but that is deferred to a later PR.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70861
It's confusing because if a function is unstable overall, there's no
need to highlight the constness is also unstable. Technically, these
attributes (overall stability and const-stability) are separate, but in
practice, we don't even show the const-unstable's feature flag (it's
normally the same as the overall function).
Otherwise, it's unclear when the nomination label is removed whether the
backport was accepted, thus nomination removed, or if the backport was
rejected, thus nomination removed.
Panic if `PathBuf::set_extension` would add a path separator
This is likely never intended and potentially a security vulnerability if it happens.
I'd guess that it's mostly literal strings that are passed to this function in practice, so I'm guessing this doesn't break anyone.
CC #125060
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #121377 (Stabilize `LazyCell` and `LazyLock`)
- #122986 (Fix c_char on AIX)
- #123803 (Fix `VecDeque::shrink_to` UB when `handle_alloc_error` unwinds.)
- #124080 (Some unstable changes to where opaque types get defined)
- #124667 (Stabilize `div_duration`)
- #125472 (tidy: validate LLVM component names in tests)
- #125523 (Exit the process a short time after entering our ctrl-c handler)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
tidy: validate LLVM component names in tests
LLVM component names are not immediately obvious (they usually omit any suffixes on the target arch name), and if they're incorrect, the test will silently never run.
This happened [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125220#discussion_r1612626002), and it would be nice to prevent it.
Fix `VecDeque::shrink_to` UB when `handle_alloc_error` unwinds.
Fixes#123369
For `VecDeque` it's relatively simple to restore the buffer into a consistent state so this PR does just that.
Note that with its current implementation, `shrink_to` may change the internal arrangement of elements in the buffer, so e.g. `[D, <uninit>, A, B, C]` will become `[<uninit>, A, B, C, D]` and `[<uninit>, <uninit>, A, B, C]` may become `[B, C, <uninit>, <uninit>, A]` if `shrink_to` unwinds. This shouldn't be an issue though as we don't make any guarantees about the stability of the internal buffer arrangement (and this case is impossible to hit on stable anyways).
This PR also includes a test with code adapted from #123369 which fails without the new `shrink_to` code. Does this suffice or do we maybe need more exhaustive tests like in #108475?
cc `@Amanieu`
`@rustbot` label +T-libs
Stabilize `LazyCell` and `LazyLock`
Closes#109736
This stabilizes the [`LazyLock`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/sync/struct.LazyLock.html) and [`LazyCell`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/cell/struct.LazyCell.html) types:
```rust
static HASHMAP: LazyLock<HashMap<i32, String>> = LazyLock::new(|| {
println!("initializing");
let mut m = HashMap::new();
m.insert(13, "Spica".to_string());
m.insert(74, "Hoyten".to_string());
m
});
let lazy: LazyCell<i32> = LazyCell::new(|| {
println!("initializing");
92
});
```
r? libs-api
Add assert_unsafe_precondition to unchecked_{add,sub,neg,mul,shl,shr} methods
(Old PR is haunted, opening a new one. See #117494 for previous discussion.)
This ensures that these preconditions are actually checked in debug mode, and hopefully should let people know if they messed up. I've also replaced the calls (I could find) in the code that use these intrinsics directly with those that use these methods, so that the asserts actually apply.
More discussions on people misusing these methods in the tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85122.
bors