```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> $DIR/expr-as-stmt.rs:69:5
|
LL | match () { () => 1 } + match () { () => 1 }
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `()`, found integer
|
help: consider using a semicolon here
|
LL | match () { () => 1 }; + match () { () => 1 }
| +
help: alternatively, parentheses are required to parse this as an expression
|
LL | (match () { () => 1 }) + match () { () => 1 }
| + +
```
Parentheses are needed for the `match` to be unambiguously parsed as an expression and not a statement when chaining with binops that are also unops.
Rehome 30 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/` [#2 of Batch #2]
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`
Rehome 30 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/` [#1 of Batch #2]
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`
Switch next solver to use a specific associated type for trait def id
The compiler just puts `DefId` in there, but rust-analyzer uses different types for each kind of item.
See [the Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/185405-t-compiler.2Frust-analyzer/topic/Implmentating.20New.20Trait.20Solver/near/534329794). In short, it will be a tremendous help to r-a to use specific associated types, while for the solver and the compiler it's a small change. So I ported `TraitId`, as a proof of concept and it's also likely the most impactful.
r? types
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- rust-lang/rust#142472 (Add new `doc(attribute = "...")` attribute)
- rust-lang/rust#145368 (CFI: Make `lto` and `linker-plugin-lto` work the same for `compiler_builtins`)
- rust-lang/rust#145853 (Improve error messages around invalid literals in attribute arguments)
- rust-lang/rust#145920 (bootstrap: Explicitly mark the end of a failed test's captured output)
- rust-lang/rust#145937 (add doc-hidden to exports in attribute prelude)
- rust-lang/rust#145965 (Move exporting of profiler and sanitizer symbols to the LLVM backend)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Improve error messages around invalid literals in attribute arguments
r? `@jdonszelmann`
This previously created two errors, which is a bit ugly and the second one didn't add any value
Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143193
CFI: Make `lto` and `linker-plugin-lto` work the same for `compiler_builtins`
Fixrust-lang/rust#142284 by ensuring that `#![no_builtins]` crates can still emit bitcode when proper (i.e., non-rustc) LTO (i.e., -Clinker-plugin-lto) is used.
Add new `doc(attribute = "...")` attribute
Fixesrust-lang/rust#141123.
The implementation and purpose of this new `#[doc(attribute = "...")]` attribute is very close to `#[doc(keyword = "...")]`. Which means that luckily for us, most of the code needed was already in place and `@Noratrieb` nicely wrote a first draft that helped me implement this new attribute very fast.
Now with all this said, there is one thing I didn't do yet: adding a `rustdoc-js-std` test. I added GUI tests with search results for attributes so should be fine but I still plan on adding one for it once documentation for builtin attributes will be written into the core/std libs.
You can test it [here](https://rustdoc.crud.net/imperio/doc-attribute-attribute/foo/index.html).
cc `@Noratrieb` `@Veykril`
When determining if a trait has no entries for the purposes of omitting vptrs from subtrait vtables, consider its transitive supertraits' entries, instead of just its own entries.
When determining if a non-first supertrait vptr can be omitted from a subtrait vtable, check if the supertrait or any of its (transitive) supertraits have methods, instead of only checking if the supertrait itself has methods.
This fixes the soundness issue where a vptr would be omitted for a supertrait with no methods but that itself had a supertrait with methods, while still optimizing the case where the supertrait is "truly" empty (it has no own vtable entries, and none of its (transitive) supertraits have any own vtable entries).
Fixes <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/145752>
-----
Old description:
~~Treat all non-auto traits as non-empty (possibly having methods) for purposes of determining if we need to emit a vptr for a non-direct supertrait (and for new "sibling" entries after a direct or non-direct supertrait).~~
This fixes (I believe) the soundness issue, ~~but regresses vtable sizes and possibly upcasting perf in some cases when using trait hierarchies with empty non-auto traits (see `tests/ui/traits/vtable/multiple-markers.stderr`) since we use vptrs in some cases where we could re-use the vtable.~~
Fixes <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/145752>
Re-opens (not anymore) <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114942>
Should not affect <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131813> (i.e. the soundness issue is still fixed, ~~though the relevant vtables in the `trait Evil` example will be larger now~~)
cc implementation history <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131864> <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113856>
-----
~~It should be possible to check if a trait has any methods from itself *or* supertraits (instead of just from itself), but to fix the immediate soundness issue, just assume any non-auto trait could have methods. A more optimistic check can be implemented later (or if someone does it soon it could just supercede this PR 😄).~~ Done in latest push
`@rustbot` label A-dyn-trait F-trait_upcasting
Rename `Location::file_with_nul` to `file_as_c_str`
This renames the method to be consistent with the ongoing T-libs-api FCP found at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/141727#issuecomment-3228016708.
I did not rename the unstable feature as we are going to be stabilizing it soon anyway. This will probably break RfL, so it will require an updated commit hash for the Linux Kernel that I will add here soon.
r? `@Amanieu`
No source fixes
This PR started as a fix for a rendering bug that [got noticed in #143661](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143661#discussion_r2199109530), but turned into a fix for any rendering bugs related to files with no source.
- Don't add an end column separator after a file with no source
- Add column separator before secondary messages with no source
- Render continuation between no source labels
Before
```
error[E0423]: expected function, tuple struct or tuple variant, found struct `std::collections::HashMap`
╭▸ $DIR/multi-suggestion.rs:17:13
│
LL │ let _ = std::collections::HashMap();
│ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
╭▸ $SRC_DIR/std/src/collections/hash/map.rs:LL:COL
│
╰ note: `std::collections::HashMap` defined here
╰╴
note: constructor is not visible here due to private fields
╭▸ $SRC_DIR/alloc/src/boxed.rs:LL:COL
│
╰ note: private field
│
╰ note: private field
```
After
```
error[E0423]: expected function, tuple struct or tuple variant, found struct `std::collections::HashMap`
╭▸ $DIR/multi-suggestion.rs:17:13
│
LL │ let _ = std::collections::HashMap();
│ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
╰╴
╭▸ $SRC_DIR/std/src/collections/hash/map.rs:LL:COL
│
╰ note: `std::collections::HashMap` defined here
note: constructor is not visible here due to private fields
╭▸ $SRC_DIR/alloc/src/boxed.rs:LL:COL
│
├ note: private field
│
╰ note: private field
```
Note: This PR also makes it so `rustc` and `annotate-snippets` match in these cases
Add assembly test for `-Zreg-struct-return` option
r? `@tgross35`
As discussed in rust-lang/rust#145309 with `@tgross35` and `@ojeda,` I added assembly tests for the `-Zreg-struct-return` option verifying that it changes the ABI from hidden pointer to register-return on x86_32.
The test covers:
- Direct struct construction, showing register return vs hidden pointer
- External function calls returning structs, showing ABI mismatch handling
Different memory layouts affect ABI mismatch handling, but register returns use the same register allocation regardless of struct field layout (apart from the fact that they use smaller registers for smaller structs, of course).
[Here](https://godbolt.org/z/dcW6rnMG3) is a compiler explorer with 2 examples. Let me know if there is anything more I could add. Since register returns only happen for structs up to the size of 2 registers, I figured testing the pivot value (8 bytes) would be most critical.
Use captures(address) instead of captures(none) for indirect args
While provenance cannot be captured through these arguments, the address / object identity can.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/137668.
r? `@ghost`
This test covers:
* The callee side, making sure that the structs are correctly loaded into registers when `-Zreg-struct-return` is enabled
* The caller side, making sure that callers do receive returned structs in registers when `-Zreg-struct-return` is enabled
Structs of the size of up to 2 registers (8 bytes) can be returned in registers in x86_32.
Therefore, the tests are done with 3 different struct sizes:
* 2 bytes (register returns should happen)
* 8 bytes (last value where register returns should happen)
* 12 bytes (register returns should not happen even when `-Zreg-struct-return` is enabled)
Region inference: Use outlives-static constraints in constraint search
Revise the extra `r: 'static` constraints added upon universe issues to add an explanation, and use that explanation during constraint blame search. This greatly simplifies the region inference logic, which now does not need to reverse-engineer the event that caused a region to outlive `'static`.
This cosmetically changes the output of two UI tests. I blessed them i separate commits with separate motivations, but that can of course be squashed as desired. We probably want that.
The PR was extracted out of rust-lang/rust#130227 and consists of one-third of its functional payload.
r? lcnr
Use -Zmir-opt-level=0 in tests for MIR building
The mir-opt test suite currently defaults all tests in it to `-Zmir-opt-level=4`, so if a test is trying to test MIR _building_ not optimizations and it is in that directory, it _must_ override the default mir-opt-level.
ci: Begin running ui tests with `rust.debuginfo-level-tests=1`
To reduce risk of regressing on generating debuginfo e.g. in the form of ICE:s. This will also ensure that future ui tests work with different debuginfo levels. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61117.
When I looked at run time for different CI jobs, **x86_64-gnu-debug** was far from the bottleneck, so it should be fine to make it perform more work.
A handful of tests are failing so we need to force debuginfo=0 on those for now.
We'll start small with debuginfo=1. We'll step up to debuginfo=2 once most (all?) tests can handle debuginfo=1. There are more failures with debuginfo=2 than with debuginfo=1.
Esteban Küber