coverage: Store signature/body spans and branch spans in the expansion tree
In order to support coverage instrumentation of expansion regions, we need to reduce the amount of code that assumes we're only instrumenting a flat function body. Moving more data into expansion tree nodes is an incremental step in that direction.
There should be no change to compiler output.
Fix bad intra-doc-link preprocessing
How did rust-lang/rust#147981 happen?
1. We don't parse intra-doc links as Rust paths or qpaths. Instead they follow a very lenient bespoke grammar. We completely ignore Markdown links if they contain characters that don't match `/[a-zA-Z0-9_:<>, !*&;]/` (we don't even emit lint *broken-intra-doc-links* for these).
2. PR [#132748](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132748) made rustdoc intepret more Markdown links as potential intra-doc links. Namely, if the link is surrounded by backticks (and some other conditions apply) then it doesn't matter if the (partially processed) link contains bad characters as defined above (cc `ignore_urllike && should_ignore_link(path_str)`).
3. However, rustdoc's `preprocess_link` must be kept in sync with a simplified counterpart in rustc. More specifically, whenever rustdoc's preprocessor returns a successful result then rustc's must yield the same result. Otherwise, rustc doesn't resolve the necessary links for rustdoc.
4. This uncovered a "dormant bug" / "mistake" in rustc's `preprocess_link`. Namely, when presented with a link like `struct@Type@suffix`, it didn't cut off the disambiguator if present (here: `struct@`). Instead it `rsplit('``@')``` which is incorrect if the "path" contains ```@``` itself (yielding `suffix` instead of `Type@suffix` here). Prior to PR [#132748](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132748), a link like ``[`struct@Type@suffix`]`` was not considered a potential intra-doc link / worth querying rustc for. Now it is due to the backticks.
5. Finally, since rustc didn't record a resolution for `Type@suffix` (it only recorded `suffix` (to be `Res::Err`)), we triggered an assertion we have in place to catch cases like this.
Fixesrust-lang/rust#147981.
I didn't and still don't have the time to investigate if rust-lang/rust#132748 led to more rustc/rustdoc mismatches (after all, the PR made rustdoc's `preprocess_link` return `Some(Ok(_))` in more cases). I've at least added another much needed "warning banner" & made the existing one more flashy.
While this fixes a stable-to-beta regression, I don't think it's worth beta backporting, esp. since it's only P-medium and since the final 1.91 release steps commence today / the next days, so it would only be stressful to get it in on time. However, feel free to nominate.
<sub>(I've written such a verbose PR description since I tend to reread my old PR descriptions in the far future to fully freshen my memories when I have to work again in this area)</sub>
r? ``@lolbinarycat``
float::min/max: reference NaN bit pattern rules
Also, the "in particular" transition to the signed zero handling was odd, so I rearranged things a bit: first a self-contained description of the semantics, then an explanation of which operations in other standards/libraries this most closely corresponds to.
r? `@tgross35`
yet another improvment to rustdoc js typechecking
biggest improvment is the docs for `FunctionType` and the signatures for functions that accept names of crates were both slightly wrong, this has now been fixed.
resolve: Identifier resolution refactorings
Mostly splitting large functions into smaller functions, including some parts from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144131, there should be no functional changes.
See individual commits.
std: split up the `thread` module
Almost all functionality in `std::thread` is currently implemented in `thread/mod.rs`, resulting in a *huge* file with more than 2000 lines and multiple, interoperating `unsafe` sections. This PR splits the file up into multiple different private modules, each implementing mostly independent parts of the functionality. The only remaining `unsafe` interplay is that of the `lifecycle` and `scope` modules, the `spawn_scoped` implementation relies on the live thread count being updated correctly by the `lifecycle` module.
This PR contains no functional changes and only moves code around for the most part, with a few notable exceptions:
* `with_current_name` is moved to the already existing `current` module and now uses the `name` method instead of calculating the name from private fields. The old code was just a reimplementation of that method anyway.
* The private `JoinInner` type used to implement both join handles now has some more methods (`is_finished`, `thread` and the `AsInner`/`IntoInner` implementations) to avoid having to expose private fields and their invariants.
* The private `spawn_unchecked_` (note the underscore) method of `Builder` is now a freestanding function in `lifecycle`.
The rest of the changes are just visibility annotations.
I realise this PR ended up quite large – let me know if there is anyway I can aid the review process.
Edit: I've simplified the diff by adding an intermediate commit that creates all the new files by duplicating `mod.rs`. The actual changes in the second commit thus appear to delete the non-relevant parts from the respective file.
const validation: remove check for mutable refs in final value of const
This check rejects code that is not necessarily UB, e.g. a mutable ref to a `static mut` that is very carefully used correctly. That led to us having to describe it in the Reference, which uncovered just how ad-hoc this check is (https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/issues/2074).
Even without this check, we still reject things like
```rust
const C: &mut i32 = &mut 0;
```
This is rejected by const checking -- the part of the frontend that looks at the source code and says whether it is allowed in const context. In the Reference, this restriction is explained [here](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/const_eval.html#r-const-eval.const-expr.borrows).
So, the check during validation is just a safety net. And it is already a safety net with gaping holes since we only check `&mut T`, not `&UnsafeCell<T>`, due to the fact that we promote some immutable values that have `!Freeze` type so `&!Freeze` actually can occur in the final value of a const.
So... it may be time for me to acknowledge that the "mutable ref in final value of const" check is a cure that's worth than the disease. Nobody asked for that check, I just added it because I was worried about soundness issues when we allow mutable references in constants. Originally it was much stricter, but I had to slowly relax it to its current form to prevent t from firing on code we intend to allow. In the end there are only 3 tests left that trigger this error, and they are all just constants containing references to mutable statics -- not the safest code in the world, but also not so bad that we have to spend a lot of time devising a core language limitation and associated Reference wording to prevent it from ever happening.
So... `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` `@rust-lang/lang` I propose that we allow code like this
```rust
static mut S: i32 = 3;
const C2: &'static mut i32 = unsafe { &mut * &raw mut S };
```
`@theemathas` would be great if you could try to poke a hole into this. ;)
Tshepang Mbambo