Introduce #[diagnostic::on_move(message)]
cc rust-lang/rust#149862
This is a first proposal. I have deliberately kept it simpler than `diagnostic::on_unimplemented`.
Few questions/remarks:
- Do I need to move the OnMoveDirective logic into a dedicated module perhaps ? let's say into compiler/rustc_borrowck/src/diagnostics/on_move.rs
- No problems to depend on crates like `rustc_ast` from the borrowck ?
- Notes are not supported yet. While message and label are very static , in the sense that they are emitted in the same way from the same place in the borrowck, it is not the case for the notes. It would make the code more complex. But, I can add support for notes if it does make sense.
Suggestions are welcomed !
This might be helpful for smart pointers to explains why they aren't Copy
and what to do instead or just to let the user know that .clone() is very
cheap and can be called without a performance penalty.
Allow merging all libcore/alloc doctests into a single binary
This is only the changes needed to *allow* merging the tests. This doesn't actually turn doctest merging on in bootstrap. I think that might be a useful follow-up, since it makes them much faster to run, but it's not without downsides because it means we'll no longer be testing that doctests have all necessary `feature()` attributes.
The motivation for this change is to run the tests with `-C instrument-coverage` and then generate a coverage report from the output. Currently, this is very expensive because it requires parsing DWARF for each doctest binary. Merging the binaries decreases the time taken from several hours to ~30 seconds.
---
There are several parts to this change, most of which are independent and I'm happy to split out into other PRs.
- Upgrade process spawning logging from debug->info so it's easier to see, including in a rustdoc built without debug symbols.
- Core doctests now support being run with `-C panic=abort`. Ferrocene needs this downstream for complicated reasons; it's a one-line change so I figured it's not a big deal.
- Downgrade errors about duplicate features from a hard error to a warning. The meaning is clear here, and doctest merging often creates duplicate features since it lifts them all to the crate root. This involves changes to the compiler but generally I expect this to be low-impact.
- Enable this new warning, as well as several related feature lints, in rustdoc. By default rustdoc doesn't lint on anything except the lints it manually adds.
- Rustdoc now treats `allow(incomplete_features)` as a crate-level attribute, just like `internal_features`. Without this, it's possible to get hard errors if rustdoc lifts features to the crate level but not `allow`s.
- Core doctests now support being built with `--merge-doctests=yes`. In particular, I removed a few `$crate` usages and explicitly marked a few doctests as `standalone_crate`.
It's defined in `rustc_span::source_map` which doesn't make any sense
because it has nothing to do with source maps. This commit moves it to
the crate root, a more sensible spot for something this basic.
- Hide common linker output behind `linker-info`
- Add tests
- Account for different capitalization on windows-gnu when removing
"warning" prefix
- Add some more comments
- Add macOS deployment-target test
- Ignore linker warnings from trying to statically link glibc
I don't know what's going on in `nofile-limit.rs` but I want no part
of it.
- Use a fake linker so tests are platform-independent
Tweak some of our internal `#[rustc_*]` TEST attributes
I think I might be the one who's used the internal TEST attrs `#[rustc_{dump_predicates,object_lifetime_default,outlives,variance}]` the most in recent times, I might even be the only one. As such I've noticed some recent-ish issues that haven't been fixed so far and which keep bothering me. Moreover I have a longstanding urge to rename several of these attributes which I couldn't contain anymore.
[`#[rustc_*]` TEST attributes](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/compiler-debugging.html#rustc_-test-attributes) are internal attributes that basically allow you to dump the output of specific queries for use in UI tests or for debugging purposes.
1. When some of these attributes were ported over to the new parsing API, their targets were unnecessarily restricted. I've kept encountering these incorrect "attribute cannot be used" errors all the while HIR analysis happily & correctly dumped the requested data below it. I've now relaxed their targets.
2. Since we now have target checking for the internal attributes I figured that it's unhelpful if we still intentionally crashed on invalid targets, so I've got rid of that.
3. I've always been annoyed that most of these (very old) attributes don't contain the word `dump` in their name (rendering their purpose non-obvious) and that some of their names diverge quite a bit from the corresponding query name. I've now rectified that. The new names take longer to type but it's still absolutely acceptable imo.
---
I haven't renamed all of the TEST attributes to follow the `rustc_dump_` scheme since that's quite tedious. If it's okay with you I'd like to postpone that (e.g., `rustc_{def_path,hidden_type…,layout,regions,symbol_name}`).
I've noticed that the parsers for TEST attrs are spread across `rustc_dump.rs`, `rustc_internal.rs` & `test_attrs.rs` which is a bit confusing. Since the new names are prefixed with `rustc_dump_` I've moved their parsers into `rustc_dump.rs` but of course they are still TEST attrs. IIRC, `test_attrs.rs` also contains non-`rustc_`-TEST attrs, so we can't just merge these two files. I guess that'll sort itself out in the future when I tackle the other internal TEST attrs.
r\? Jana || Jonathan
Parse `impl` restrictions
This PR implements the parsing logic for `impl` restrictions (e.g., `pub impl(crate) trait Foo {}`) as proposed in [RFC 3323](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3323-restrictions.html).
As the first step of the RFC implementation, this PR focuses strictly on the parsing phase. The new syntax is guarded by the `#![feature(impl_restriction)]` feature gate.
This implementation basically follows the pattern used in rust-lang/rust#141754.
r? @jhpratt
core: make atomic primitives type aliases of `Atomic<T>`
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130539
This makes `AtomicI32` and friends type aliases of `Atomic<T>` by encoding their alignment requirements via the use of an internal `Storage` associated type. This is also used to encode that `AtomicBool` store a `u8` internally.
Modulo the `Send`/`Sync` implementations, this PR does not move any trait implementations, methods or associated functions – I'll leave that for another PR.
add field representing types
*[View all comments](https://triagebot.infra.rust-lang.org/gh-comments/rust-lang/rust/pull/152730)*
> [!NOTE]
> This is a rewrite of #146307 by using a lang item instead of a custom `TyKind`. We still need a `hir::TyKind::FieldOf` variant, because resolving the field name cannot be done before HIR construction. The advantage of doing it this way is that we don't need to make any changes to types after HIR (including symbol mangling). At the very beginning of this feature implementation, I tried to do it using a lang item, but then quickly abandoned the approach, because at that time I was still intending to support nested fields.
Here is a [range-diff](https://triagebot.infra.rust-lang.org/gh-range-diff/rust-lang/rust/605f49b27444a738ea4032cb77e3bdc4eb811bab..d15f5052095b3549111854a2555dd7026b0a729e/605f49b27444a738ea4032cb77e3bdc4eb811bab..f5f42d1e03495dbaa23671c46b15fccddeb3492f) between the two PRs
---
# Add Field Representing Types (FRTs)
This PR implements the first step of the field projection lang experiment (Tracking Issue: rust-lang/rust#145383). Field representing types (FRTs) are a new kind of type. They can be named through the use of the `field_of!` macro with the first argument being the type and the second the name of the field (or variant and field in the case of an enum). No nested fields are supported.
FRTs natively implement the `Field` trait that's also added in this PR. It exposes information about the field such as the type of the field, the type of the base (i.e. the type that contains the field) and the offset within that base type. Only fields of non-packed structs are supported, fields of enums an unions have unique types for each field, but those do not implement the `Field` trait.
This PR was created in collaboration with @dingxiangfei2009, it wouldn't have been possible without him, so huge thanks for mentoring me!
I updated my library solution for field projections to use the FRTs from `core` instead of creating my own using the hash of the name of the field. See the [Rust-for-Linux/field-projection `lang-experiment` branch](https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/field-projection/tree/lang-experiment).
## API added to `core::field`
```rust
pub unsafe trait Field {
type Base;
type Type;
const OFFSET: usize;
}
pub macro field_of($Container:ty, $($fields:expr)+ $(,)?);
```
Along with a perma-unstable type that the compiler uses in the expansion of the macro:
```rust
#[unstable(feature = "field_representing_type_raw", issue = "none")]
pub struct FieldRepresentingType<T: ?Sized, const VARIANT: u32, const FIELD: u32> {
_phantom: PhantomData<T>,
}
```
## Explanation of Field Representing Types (FRTs)
FRTs are used for compile-time & trait-level reflection for fields of structs & tuples. Each struct & tuple has a unique compiler-generated type nameable through the `field_of!` macro. This type natively contains information about the field such as the outermost container, type of the field and its offset. Users may implement additional traits on these types in order to record custom information (for example a crate may define a [`PinnableField` trait](https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/field-projection/blob/lang-experiment/src/marker.rs#L9-L23) that records whether the field is structurally pinned).
They are the foundation of field projections, a general operation that's generic over the fields of a struct. This genericism needs to be expressible in the trait system. FRTs make this possible, since an operation generic over fields can just be a function with a generic parameter `F: Field`.
> [!NOTE]
> The approach of field projections has changed considerably since this PR was opened. In the end we might not need FRTs, so this API is highly experimental.
FRTs should act as though they were defined as `struct MyStruct_my_field<StructGenerics>;` next to the struct. So it should be local to the crate defining the struct so that one can implement any trait for the FRT from that crate. The `Field` traits should be implemented by the compiler & populated with correct information (`unsafe` code needs to be able to rely on them being correct).
## TODOs
There are some `FIXME(FRTs)` scattered around the code:
- Diagnostics for `field_of!` can be improved
- `tests/ui/field_representing_types/nonexistent.rs`
- `tests/ui/field_representing_types/non-struct.rs`
- `tests/ui/field_representing_types/offset.rs`
- `tests/ui/field_representing_types/not-field-if-packed.rs`
- `tests/ui/field_representing_types/invalid.rs`
- Simple type alias already seem to work, but might need some extra work in `compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/hir_ty_lowering/mod.rs`
r? @oli-obk
Use `HashStable` derive in more places
This applies `HashStable` derive in a couple more places. Also `stable_hasher` is declared for `HashStable_NoContext`.
rustc_expand: improve diagnostics for non-repeatable metavars in repetition
Enhance `NoSyntaxVarsExprRepeat` by suggesting similarly named metavariables, distinguishing repeatable vs non-repeatable bindings, and listing available repeatable variables when no match exists.
Reflection TypeKind::FnPtr
This is for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/146922.
Const-eval currently lacks full support for function pointer (fn) types. We should implement handling of FnPtr TypeKind, covering safe and unsafe functions, Rust and custom ABIs, input and output types, higher-ranked lifetimes, and variadic functions.
- Implement handling of FnPtr TypeKind in const-eval, including:
- Unsafety flag (safe vs unsafe fn)
- ABI variants (Rust, Named(C), Named(custom))
- Input and output types
- Variadic function pointers
- Add const-eval tests covering:
- Basic Rust fn() pointers
- Unsafe fn() pointers
- Extern C and custom ABI pointers
- Functions with multiple inputs and output types
- Variadic functions
- Use const TypeId checks to verify correctness of inputs, outputs, and payloads
Enhance `NoSyntaxVarsExprRepeat` by suggesting similarly named
metavariables, distinguishing repeatable vs non-repeatable bindings,
and listing available repeatable variables when no match exists.
Co-authored-by: Esteban Küber <esteban@kuber.com.ar>
Signed-off-by: Usman Akinyemi <usmanakinyemi202@gmail.com>
Implement RFC 3678: Final trait methods
Tracking: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131179
This PR is based on rust-lang/rust#130802, with some minor changes and conflict resolution.
Futhermore, this PR excludes final methods from the vtable of a dyn Trait.
And some excerpt from the original PR description:
> Implements the surface part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3678.
>
> I'm using the word "method" in the title, but in the diagnostics and the feature gate I used "associated function", since that's more accurate.
cc @joshtriplett
replace box_new with lower-level intrinsics
The `box_new` intrinsic is super special: during THIR construction it turns into an `ExprKind::Box` (formerly known as the `box` keyword), which then during MIR building turns into a special instruction sequence that invokes the exchange_malloc lang item (which has a name from a different time) and a special MIR statement to represent a shallowly-initialized `Box` (which raises [interesting opsem questions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97270)).
This PR is the n-th attempt to get rid of `box_new`. That's non-trivial because it usually causes a perf regression: replacing `box_new` by naive unsafe code will incur extra copies in debug builds, making the resulting binaries a lot slower, and will generate a lot more MIR, making compilation measurably slower. Furthermore, `vec!` is a macro, so the exact code it expands to is highly relevant for borrow checking, type inference, and temporary scopes.
To avoid those problems, this PR does its best to make the MIR almost exactly the same as what it was before. `box_new` is used in two places, `Box::new` and `vec!`:
- For `Box::new` that is fairly easy: the `move_by_value` intrinsic is basically all we need. However, to avoid the extra copy that would usually be generated for the argument of a function call, we need to special-case this intrinsic during MIR building. That's what the first commit does.
- `vec!` is a lot more tricky. As a macro, its details leak to stable code, so almost every variant I tried broke either type inference or the lifetimes of temporaries in some ui test or ended up accepting unsound code due to the borrow checker not enforcing all the constraints I hoped it would enforce. I ended up with a variant that involves a new intrinsic, `fn write_box_via_move<T>(b: Box<MaybeUninit<T>>, x: T) -> Box<MaybeUninit<T>>`, that writes a value into a `Box<MaybeUninit<T>>` and returns that box again. In exchange we can get rid of somewhat similar code in the lowering for `ExprKind::Box`, and the `exchange_malloc` lang item. (We can also get rid of `Rvalue::ShallowInitBox`; I didn't include that in this PR -- I think @cjgillot has a commit for this somewhere [around here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/147862/commits).)
See [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/148190#issuecomment-3457454814) for the latest perf numbers. Most of the regressions are in deep-vector which consists entirely of an invocation of `vec!`, so any change to that macro affects this benchmark disproportionally.
This is my first time even looking at MIR building code, so I am very low confidence in that part of the patch, in particular when it comes to scopes and drops and things like that.
I also had do nerf some clippy tests because clippy gets confused by the new expansion of `vec!` so it makes fewer suggestions when `vec!` is involved.
### `vec!` FAQ
- Why does `write_box_via_move` return the `Box` again? Because we need to expand `vec!` to a bunch of method invocations without any blocks or let-statements, or else the temporary scopes (and type inference) don't work out.
- Why is `box_assume_init_into_vec_unsafe` (unsoundly!) a safe function? Because we can't use an unsafe block in `vec!` as that would necessarily also include the `$x` (due to it all being one big method invocation) and therefore interpret the user's code as being inside `unsafe`, which would be bad (and 10 years later, we still don't have safe blocks for macros like this).
- Why does `write_box_via_move` use `Box` as input/output type, and not, say, raw pointers? Because that is the only way to get the correct behavior when `$x` panics or has control effects: we need the `Box` to be dropped in that case. (As a nice side-effect this also makes the intrinsic safe, which is imported as explained in the previous bullet.)
- Can't we make it safe by having `write_box_via_move` return `Box<T>`? Yes we could, but there's no easy way for the intrinsic to convert its `Box<MaybeUninit<T>>` to a `Box<T>`. Transmuting would be unsound as the borrow checker would no longer properly enforce that lifetimes involved in a `vec!` invocation behave correctly.
- Is this macro truly cursed? Yes, yes it is.
Stuart Cook