| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
test_nan: ensure the NAN contant is quiet
Follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139483
r? ``@tgross35``
|
|
Handle another negated literal in `eat_token_lit`.
Extends the change from #139653, which was on expressions, to literals.
Fixes #140098.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
|
|
Update books
## rust-lang/nomicon
1 commits in 0c10c30cc54736c5c194ce98c50e2de84eeb6e79..c76a20f0d987145dcedf05c5c073ce8d91f2e82a
2025-04-15 20:54:57 UTC to 2025-04-15 20:54:57 UTC
- Say that dereferencing a pointer to a ZST is no longer undefined (rust-lang/nomicon#467)
## rust-lang/reference
7 commits in 3340922df189bddcbaad17dc3927d51a76bcd5ed..3bf3402aea982b876eb56c87da17b0685c6461d5
2025-04-18 13:44:45 UTC to 2025-04-17 17:27:01 UTC
- Use `cfg(false)` instead of `cfg(FALSE)` (rust-lang/reference#1763)
- Add `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` to conditional compilation (RFC 3695) (rust-lang/reference#1762)
- Refactor rendering with `RenderCtx` (rust-lang/reference#1796)
- attributes/codegen: update aarch64 features (rust-lang/reference#1791)
- Simplify GenericParams grammar (rust-lang/reference#1795)
- Add rule identifiers for the ABI chapter (rust-lang/reference#1793)
- Remove broken footnote links from grammar summary (rust-lang/reference#1794)
|
|
Shourya742:2025-04-21-auto-diff-fails-on-impl-block, r=ZuseZ4
Fix auto diff failing on inherent impl blocks
closes: #139557
r? ``@ZuseZ4``
|
|
handle function alignment in miri
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82232
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/4282
The `#[repr(align(N))]` attribute on functions was ignored when using miri. For such a function, its address should be a multiple of `N`.
There is some further discussion in the thread [#t-compiler/const-eval > function address alignment](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/146212-t-compiler.2Fconst-eval/topic/function.20address.20alignment) on how `dyn Fn` should be handled. The behavior there appears to be consistent between miri and nightly, though both may be incorrect. In any case, that can be resolved separately.
|
|
compiletest: Fix deadline bugs in new executor
The experimental new executor for compiletest (#139660) was found to have two major bugs in deadline handling for detecting slow tests:
- The comparison between `now` and test deadlines was reversed, causing no timeouts to ever be recognised.
- After fixing that bug, it was found that the existing code would issue timeouts for any test that had started more than 60 seconds ago, even if the test had finished long before its deadline was reached.
This PR fixes those bugs.
(The new executor is not yet enabled by default, so this PR has no immediate effect on contributors.)
---
I noted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139998#issuecomment-2815127046 that I hoped to have some unit tests to accompany these fixes. Unfortunately that turned out to be infeasible, because `DeadlineQueue` is tightly coupled to concrete `mpsc::Receiver` APIs (in addition to `Instant::now`), and trying to mock all of those would make the code much more complicated.
I did, however, add a few assertions that would have caught the failure to remove tests from the queue after their deadline.
r? jieyouxu
|
|
improve diagnostic for raw pointer field access with ->
This PR enhances the error messages emitted by the Rust compiler when users attempt to use the `->` operator for field access on raw pointers or when dereferencing is needed. The changes aim to provide clearer guidance, by suggesting the correct use of the `.` operator and explicit dereferencing.
**Before:**
```
help: `xs` is a raw pointer; try dereferencing it
|
LL | (*xs)->count += 1;
| ++ +
```
**Now:**
```
help: use `.` on a dereferenced raw pointer instead
|
LL - xs->count += 1;
LL + (*xs).count += 1;
|
```
I added extra clarification in the message. Since this error occurs in the parser, we can't be certain that the type is a raw pointer. That's why the message includes only a small note in brackets. (In contrast, the message above is emitted in HIR, where we *can* check whether it's a raw pointer.)
**Before:**
```
--> main.rs:11:11
|
11 | xs->count += 1;
| ^^
|
= help: the . operator will dereference the value if needed
```
**After:**
```
--> main.rs:11:11
|
11 | xs->count += 1;
| ^^
|
= help: the `.` operator will automatically dereference the value, except if the value is a raw pointer
```
|
|
Use posix_spawn on cygwin
r? ``@joboet``
Depends on:
- [x] https://github.com/rust-lang/libc/pull/4387
- [x] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140081
|
|
|
|
Add tests for two untested cases of placeholder relations
During work on #130227, I discovered several situations not covered by any previously existing UI test. This commit introudces tests to cover that.
r? lcnr
|
|
During work on #130227, I discovered several situations not covered by any
previously existing UI test. This commit introudces tests to cover that.
|
|
|
|
Stabilize let chains in the 2024 edition
# Stabilization report
This proposes the stabilization of `let_chains` ([tracking issue], [RFC 2497]) in the [2024 edition] of Rust.
[tracking issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53667
[RFC 2497]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2497
[2024 edition]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/edition-guide/rust-2024/index.html
## What is being stabilized
The ability to `&&`-chain `let` statements inside `if` and `while` is being stabilized, allowing intermixture with boolean expressions. The patterns inside the `let` sub-expressions can be irrefutable or refutable.
```Rust
struct FnCall<'a> {
fn_name: &'a str,
args: Vec<i32>,
}
fn is_legal_ident(s: &str) -> bool {
s.chars()
.all(|c| ('a'..='z').contains(&c) || ('A'..='Z').contains(&c))
}
impl<'a> FnCall<'a> {
fn parse(s: &'a str) -> Option<Self> {
if let Some((fn_name, after_name)) = s.split_once("(")
&& !fn_name.is_empty()
&& is_legal_ident(fn_name)
&& let Some((args_str, "")) = after_name.rsplit_once(")")
{
let args = args_str
.split(',')
.map(|arg| arg.parse())
.collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>>();
args.ok().map(|args| FnCall { fn_name, args })
} else {
None
}
}
fn exec(&self) -> Option<i32> {
let iter = self.args.iter().copied();
match self.fn_name {
"sum" => Some(iter.sum()),
"max" => iter.max(),
"min" => iter.min(),
_ => None,
}
}
}
fn main() {
println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("sum(1,2,3)").unwrap().exec());
println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("max(4,5)").unwrap().exec());
}
```
The feature will only be stabilized for the 2024 edition and future editions. Users of past editions will get an error with a hint to update the edition.
closes #53667
## Why 2024 edition?
Rust generally tries to ship new features to all editions. So even the oldest editions receive the newest features. However, sometimes a feature requires a breaking change so much that offering the feature without the breaking change makes no sense. This occurs rarely, but has happened in the 2018 edition already with `async` and `await` syntax. It required an edition boundary in order for `async`/`await` to become keywords, and the entire feature foots on those keywords.
In the instance of let chains, the issue is the drop order of `if let` chains. If we want `if let` chains to be compatible with `if let`, drop order makes it hard for us to [generate correct MIR]. It would be strange to have different behaviour for `if let ... {}` and `if true && let ... {}`. So it's better to [stay consistent with `if let`].
In edition 2024, [drop order changes] have been introduced to make `if let` temporaries be lived more shortly. These changes also affected `if let` chains. These changes make sense even if you don't take the `if let` chains MIR generation problem into account. But if we want to use them as the solution to the MIR generation problem, we need to restrict let chains to edition 2024 and beyond: for let chains, it's not just a change towards more sensible behaviour, but one required for correct function.
[generate correct MIR]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104843
[stay consistent with `if let`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103293#issuecomment-1293408574
[drop order changes]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124085
## Introduction considerations
As edition 2024 is very new, this stabilization PR only makes it possible to use let chains on 2024 without that feature gate, it doesn't mark that feature gate as stable/removed. I would propose to continue offering the `let_chains` feature (behind a feature gate) for a limited time (maybe 3 months after stabilization?) on older editions to allow nightly users to adopt edition 2024 at their own pace. After that, the feature gate shall be marked as *stabilized*, not removed, and replaced by an error on editions 2021 and below.
## Implementation history
* History from before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR] that was reverted.
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94927
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94951
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94974
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95008
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97295
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98633
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99731
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102394
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100526
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100538
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102998
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103405
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103293
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107251
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110568
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115677
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117743
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117770
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118191
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119554
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129394
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132828
* https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1179
* https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1251
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/pull/5910
[original stabilization PR]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94927
## Adoption history
### In the compiler
* History before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR].
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115983
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116549
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116688
### Outside of the compiler
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11750
* [rspack](https://github.com/web-infra-dev/rspack)
* [risingwave](https://github.com/risingwavelabs/risingwave)
* [dylint](https://github.com/trailofbits/dylint)
* [convex-backend](https://github.com/get-convex/convex-backend)
* [tikv](https://github.com/tikv/tikv)
* [Daft](https://github.com/Eventual-Inc/Daft)
* [greptimedb](https://github.com/GreptimeTeam/greptimedb)
## Tests
<details>
### Intentional restrictions
[`partially-macro-expanded.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/partially-macro-expanded.rs), [`macro-expanded.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/macro-expanded.rs): it is possible to use macros to expand to both the pattern and the expression inside a let chain, but not to the entire `let pat = expr` operand.
[`parens.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/parens.rs): `if (let pat = expr)` is not allowed in chains
[`ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs): `let...else` doesn't support chaining.
### Overlap with match guards
[`move-guard-if-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/move-guard-if-let-chain.rs): test for the `use moved value` error working well in match guards. could maybe be extended with let chains that have more than one `let`
[`shadowing.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/shadowing.rs): shadowing in if let guards works as expected
[`ast-validate-guards.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-validate-guards.rs): let chains in match guards require the match guards feature gate
### Simple cases from the early days
PR #88642 has added some tests with very simple usages of `let else`, mostly as regression tests to early bugs.
[`then-else-blocks.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/then-else-blocks.rs)
[`ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs)
[`issue-90722.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-90722.rs)
[`issue-92145.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-92145.rs)
### Drop order/MIR scoping tests
[`issue-100276.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/issue-100276.rs): let expressions on RHS aren't terminating scopes
[`drop_order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/drop_order.rs): exhaustive temporary drop order test for various Rust constructs, including let chains
[`scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/scope.rs): match guard scoping test
[`drop-scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/drop-scope.rs): another match guard scoping test, ensuring that temporaries in if-let guards live for the arm
[`drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs): if let rescoping on edition 2024, including chains
[`mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/mir/mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs): comprehensive drop order test for let chains, distinguishes editions 2021 and 2024.
[`issue-99938.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-99938.rs), [`issue-99852.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/mir/issue-99852.rs) both bad MIR ICEs fixed by #102394
### Linting
[`irrefutable-lets.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/irrefutable-lets.rs): trailing and leading irrefutable let patterns get linted for, others don't. The lint is turned off for `else if`.
[`issue-121070-let-range.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/lint/issue-121070-let-range.rs): regression test for false positive of the unused parens lint, precedence requires the `()`s here
### Parser: intentional restrictions
[`disallowed-positions.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/2128d8df0e858edcbe6a0861bac948b88b7fabc3/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs): `let` in expression context is rejected everywhere except at the top level
[`invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs): nested `let` is not allowed (let's are no legal expressions just because they are allowed in `if` and `while`).
### Parser: recovery
[`issue-103381.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/issues/issue-103381.rs): Graceful recovery of incorrect chaining of `if` and `if let`
[`semi-in-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/semi-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray `;`s in let chains give nice errors (`if_chain!` users might be accustomed to `;`s)
[`deli-ident-issue-1.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/deli-ident-issue-1.rs), [`brace-in-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/brace-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray unclosed `{`s in let chains give nice errors and hints
### Misc
[`conflicting_bindings.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/pattern/usefulness/conflicting_bindings.rs): the conflicting bindings check also works in let chains. Personally, I'd extend it to chains with multiple let's as well.
[`let-chains-attr.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/expr/if/attrs/let-chains-attr.rs): attributes work on let chains
### Tangential tests with `#![feature(let_chains)]`
[`if-let.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/coverage/branch/if-let.rs): MC/DC coverage tests for let chains
[`logical_or_in_conditional.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/mir-opt/building/logical_or_in_conditional.rs): not really about let chains, more about dropping/scoping behaviour of `||`
[`stringify.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs): exhaustive test of the `stringify` macro
[`expanded-interpolation.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-interpolation.rs), [`expanded-exhaustive.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-exhaustive.rs): Exhaustive test of `-Zunpretty`
[`diverges-not.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-0000-never_patterns/diverges-not.rs): Never type, mostly tangential to let chains
</details>
## Possible future work
* There is proposals to allow `if let Pat(bindings) = expr {}` to be written as `if expr is Pat(bindings) {}` ([RFC 3573]). `if let` chains are a natural extension of the already existing `if let` syntax, and I'd argue orthogonal towards `is` syntax.
* https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/297
* One could have similar chaining inside `let ... else` statements. There is no proposed RFC for this however, nor is it implemented on nightly.
* Match guards have the `if` keyword as well, but on stable Rust, they don't support `let`. The functionality is available via an unstable feature ([`if_let_guard` tracking issue]). Stabilization of let chains affects this feature in so far as match guards containing let chains now only need the `if_let_guard` feature gate be present instead of also the `let_chains` feature (NOTE: this PR doesn't implement this simplification, it's left for future work).
[RFC 3573]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3573
[`if_let_guard` tracking issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51114
## Open questions / blockers
- [ ] bad recovery if you don't put a `let` (I don't think this is a blocker): [#117977](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117977)
- [x] An instance where a temporary lives shorter than with nested ifs, breaking compilation: [#103476](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/103476). Personally I don't think this is a blocker either, as it's an edge case. Edit: turns out to not reproduce in edition 2025 any more, due to let rescoping. regression test added in #133093
- [x] One should probably extend the tests for `move-guard-if-let-chain.rs` and `conflicting_bindings.rs` to have chains with multiple let's: done in 133093
- [x] Parsing rejection tests: addressed by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132828
- [x] [Style](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/346005-t-style/topic/let.20chains.20stabilization.20and.20formatting): https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139456
- [x] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/86730 explicitly mentions `let_else`. I think we can live with `let pat = expr` not evaluating as `expr` for macro_rules macros, especially given that `let pat = expr` is not a legal expression anywhere except inside `if` and `while`.
- [x] Documentation in the reference: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1740
- [x] Add chapter to the Rust 2024 [edition guide]: https://github.com/rust-lang/edition-guide/pull/337
- [x] Resolve open questions on desired drop order.
[original reference PR]: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1179
[edition guide]: https://github.com/rust-lang/edition-guide
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extends the change from #139653, which was on expressions, to literals.
Fixes #140098.
|
|
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #139981 (Don't compute name of associated item if it's an RPITIT)
- #140077 (Construct OutputType using macro and print [=FILENAME] help info)
- #140081 (Update `libc` to 0.2.172)
- #140094 (Improve diagnostics for pointer arithmetic += and -= (fixes #137391))
- #140128 (Use correct annotation for CSS pseudo elements)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use correct annotation for CSS pseudo elements
The list of CSS pseudo elements is pretty short so it was easy to go through. Even though the `:` is accepted, it's incorrect.
For a description of CSS pseudo elements: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Pseudo-elements
r? ``@notriddle``
|
|
r=compiler-errors
Improve diagnostics for pointer arithmetic += and -= (fixes #137391)
**Description**:
This PR improves the diagnostic message for cases where a binary assignment operation like `ptr += offset` or `ptr -= offset` is attempted on `*mut T`. These operations are not allowed, and the compiler previously suggested calling `.add()` or `.wrapping_add()`, which is misleading if not assigned.
This PR updates the diagnostics to suggest assigning the result of `.wrapping_add()` or `.wrapping_sub()` back to the pointer, e.g.:
**Examples**
For this code
```rust
let mut arr = [0u8; 10];
let mut ptr = arr.as_mut_ptr();
ptr += 2;
```
it will say:
```rust
10 | ptr += 2;
| ---^^^^^
| |
| cannot use `+=` on type `*mut u8`
|
help: consider replacing `ptr += offset` with `ptr = ptr.wrapping_add(offset)` or `ptr.add(offset)`
|
10 - ptr += 2;
10 + ptr = ptr.wrapping_add(2);
```
**Related issue**: #137391
cc `@nabijaczleweli` for context (issue author)
|
|
Update `libc` to 0.2.172
r? ````@joboet````
|
|
Construct OutputType using macro and print [=FILENAME] help info
Closes #139805
Use define_output_types to define variants of OutputType, as well as refactor all of its methods for clarity. This way no variant is missed when pattern matching or output help messages.
On top of that, I optimized for `emit` help messages.
r? ```@jieyouxu```
|
|
Don't compute name of associated item if it's an RPITIT
Another simple fix for an RPITIT name ICE.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139941
Fixes #140084
r? nnethercote
|
|
Remove `token::{Open,Close}Delim`
By replacing them with `{Open,Close}{Param,Brace,Bracket,Invisible}`.
PR #137902 made `ast::TokenKind` more like `lexer::TokenKind` by
replacing the compound `BinOp{,Eq}(BinOpToken)` variants with fieldless
variants `Plus`, `Minus`, `Star`, etc. This commit does a similar thing
with delimiters. It also makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`parser::TokenType`.
This requires a few new methods:
- `TokenKind::is_{,open_,close_}delim()` replace various kinds of
pattern matches.
- `Delimiter::as_{open,close}_token_kind` are used to convert
`Delimiter` values to `TokenKind`.
Despite these additions, it's a net reduction in lines of code. This is
because e.g. `token::OpenParen` is so much shorter than
`token::OpenDelim(Delimiter::Parenthesis)` that many multi-line forms
reduce to single line forms. And many places where the number of lines
doesn't change are still easier to read, just because the names are
shorter, e.g.:
```
- } else if self.token != token::CloseDelim(Delimiter::Brace) {
+ } else if self.token != token::CloseBrace {
```
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #134213 (Stabilize `naked_functions`)
- #139711 (Hermit: Unify `std::env::args` with Unix)
- #139795 (Clarify why SGX code specifies linkage/symbol names for certain statics)
- #140036 (Advent of `tests/ui` (misc cleanups and improvements) [4/N])
- #140047 (remove a couple clones)
- #140052 (Fix error when an intra doc link is trying to resolve an empty associated item)
- #140074 (rustdoc-json: Improve test for auto-trait impls)
- #140076 (jsondocck: Require command is at start of line)
- #140107 (rustc-dev-guide subtree update)
- #140111 (cleanup redundant pattern instances)
- #140118 ({B,C}Str: minor cleanup)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
|
|
{B,C}Str: minor cleanup
(hopefully) uncontroversial bits extracted from #139994.
|
|
cleanup redundant pattern instances
Just two small code cleanups.
|
|
rustc-dev-guide subtree update
r? ``@ghost``
|
|
jsondocck: Require command is at start of line
In one place we use `///``@``` instead of `//``@`.`` The test-runner allowed it, but it probably shouldn't. Ran into by ``@lolbinarycat`` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132748#issuecomment-2816469322:
```
error: unknown disambiguator `?(`
##[error] --> /checkout/tests/rustdoc-json/fns/return_type_alias.rs:3:25
|
3 | ///@ set foo = "$.index[?(``@.name=='Foo')].id"``
| ^^
|
```
Maybe it's also worth erroring on this like we added in #137103
r? ``@GuillaumeGomez``
|
|
rustdoc-json: Improve test for auto-trait impls
The TODO is fixable now due-to #138763. While I was here I realized there's probably a a few more things we should also test.
r? ```@GuillaumeGomez```
|
|
Fix error when an intra doc link is trying to resolve an empty associated item
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140026.
Assigning ```@nnethercote``` since they're the one who wrote the initial change.
I updated rustdoc code instead of compiler's because I think it makes more sense that the caller ensures on their side that the name they're looking for isn't empty.
r? ```@nnethercote```
|
|
remove a couple clones
|
|
Advent of `tests/ui` (misc cleanups and improvements) [4/N]
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of #133895.
### Review advice
- Best reviewed commit-by-commit.
- I can squash commits before merge, commits are separate to make it easier to review.
|
|
Clarify why SGX code specifies linkage/symbol names for certain statics
Specifying linkage/symbol name is solely to ensure a single instance between the `std` crate and its unit tests.
Also update the symbol names as items have moved around a bit. The actual name isn't that important, it just needs to be unique. But for debugging it can be useful for it to point to the right place.
|
|
Hermit: Unify `std::env::args` with Unix
The only differences between these implementations of `std::env::args` are that Unix uses relaxed ordering, but Hermit uses acquire/release, and Unix truncates `argv` at the first null pointer, but Hermit doesn't. Since Hermit aims for Unix compatibility, unify it with Unix.
The atomic orderings were established in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/74006 (cc `@euclio)` for Unix and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100579 (cc `@joboet)` for Hermit and, before those, they used mutexes and non-atomic statics. I think the difference in orderings is simply from them being changed at different times. The commented explanation for using acquire/release for Hermit is “to broadcast writes by the OS”. I'm not experienced enough with atomics to accurately judge, but I think acquire/release is stronger than needed. Either way, they should match.
Truncating at the first null pointer seems desirable, though I don't know whether it is necessary in practice on Hermit.
cc `@mkroening` `@stlankes` for Hermit
|
|
r=tgross35,Amanieu,traviscross
Stabilize `naked_functions`
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
request for stabilization on tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957#issuecomment-2539270352
reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1689
# Request for Stabilization
Two years later, we're ready to try this again. Even though this issue is already marked as having passed FCP, given the amount of time that has passed and the changes in implementation strategy, we should follow the process again.
## Summary
The `naked_functions` feature has two main parts: the `#[naked]` function attribute, and the `naked_asm!` macro.
An example of a naked function:
```rust
const THREE: usize = 3;
#[naked]
pub extern "sysv64" fn add_n(number: usize) -> usize {
// SAFETY: the validity of the used registers
// is guaranteed according to the "sysv64" ABI
unsafe {
core::arch::naked_asm!(
"add rdi, {}",
"mov rax, rdi",
"ret",
const THREE,
)
}
}
```
When the `#[naked]` attribute is applied to a function, the compiler won't emit a [function prologue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_prologue_and_epilogue) or epilogue when generating code for this function. This attribute is analogous to [`__attribute__((naked))`](https://developer.arm.com/documentation/100067/0608/Compiler-specific-Function--Variable--and-Type-Attributes/--attribute----naked---function-attribute) in C. The use of this feature allows the programmer to have precise control over the assembly that is generated for a given function.
The body of a naked function must consist of a single `naked_asm!` invocation, a heavily restricted variant of the `asm!` macro: the only legal operands are `const` and `sym`, and the only legal options are `raw` and `att_syntax`. In lieu of specifying operands, the `naked_asm!` within a naked function relies on the function's calling convention to determine the validity of registers.
## Documentation
The Rust Reference: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1689
(Previous PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1153)
## Tests
* [tests/run-make/naked-symbol-visiblity](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn) verifies that `pub`, `#[no_mangle]` and `#[linkage = "..."]` work correctly for naked functions
* [tests/codegen/naked-fn](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn) has tests for function alignment, use of generics, and validates the exact assembly output on linux, macos, windows and thumb
* [tests/ui/asm/naked-*](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/tests/ui/asm) tests for incompatible attributes, generating errors around incorrect use of `naked_asm!`, etc
## Interaction with other (unstable) features
### [fn_align](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82232)
Combining `#[naked]` with `#[repr(align(N))]` works well, and is tested e.g. here
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn/aligned.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn/min-function-alignment.rs
It's tested extensively because we do need to explicitly support the `repr(align)` attribute (and make sure we e.g. don't mistake powers of two for number of bytes).
## History
This feature was originally proposed in [RFC 1201](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1201), filed on 2015-07-10 and accepted on 2016-03-21. Support for this feature was added in [#32410](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/32410), landing on 2016-03-23. Development languished for several years as it was realized that the semantics given in RFC 1201 were insufficiently specific. To address this, a minimal subset of naked functions was specified by [RFC 2972](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2972), filed on 2020-08-07 and accepted on 2021-11-16. Prior to the acceptance of RFC 2972, all of the stricter behavior specified by RFC 2972 was implemented as a series of warn-by-default lints that would trigger on existing uses of the `naked` attribute; these lints became hard errors in [#93153](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93153) on 2022-01-22. As a result, today RFC 2972 has completely superseded RFC 1201 in describing the semantics of the `naked` attribute.
More recently, the `naked_asm!` macro was added to replace the earlier use of a heavily restricted `asm!` invocation. The `naked_asm!` name is clearer in error messages, and provides a place for documenting the specific requirements of inline assembly in naked functions.
The implementation strategy was changed to emitting a global assembly block. In effect, an extern function
```rust
extern "C" fn foo() {
core::arch::naked_asm!("ret")
}
```
is emitted as something similar to
```rust
core::arch::global_asm!(
"foo:",
"ret"
);
extern "C" {
fn foo();
}
```
The codegen approach was chosen over the llvm naked function attribute because:
- the rust compiler can guarantee the behavior (no sneaky additional instructions, no inlining, etc.)
- behavior is the same on all backends (llvm, cranelift, gcc, etc)
Finally, there is now an allow list of compatible attributes on naked functions, so that e.g. `#[inline]` is rejected with an error. The `#[target_feature]` attribute on naked functions was later made separately unstable, because implementing it is complex and we did not want to block naked functions themselves on how target features work on them. See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138568.
relevant PRs for these recent changes
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127853
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128651
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128004
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138570
-
### Various historical notes
#### `noreturn`
[RFC 2972](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2972-constrained-naked.md) mentions that naked functions
> must have a body which contains only a single asm!() statement which:
> iii. must contain the noreturn option.
Instead of `asm!`, the current implementation mandates that the body contain a single `naked_asm!` statement. The `naked_asm!` macro is a heavily restricted version of the `asm!` macro, making it easier to talk about and document the rules of assembly in naked functions and give dedicated error messages.
For `naked_asm!`, the behavior of the `asm!`'s `noreturn` option is implicit. The `noreturn` option means that it is UB for control flow to fall through the end of the assembly block. With `asm!`, this option is usually used for blocks that diverge (and thus have no return and can be typed as `!`). With `naked_asm!`, the intent is different: usually naked funtions do return, but they must do so from within the assembly block. The `noreturn` option was used so that the compiler would not itself also insert a `ret` instruction at the very end.
#### padding / `ud2`
A `naked_asm!` block that violates the safety assumption that control flow must not fall through the end of the assembly block is UB. Because no return instruction is emitted, whatever bytes follow the naked function will be executed, resulting in truly undefined behavior. There has been discussion whether rustc should emit an invalid instruction (e.g. `ud2` on x86) after the `naked_asm!` block to at least fail early in the case of an invalid `naked_asm!`. It was however decided that it is more useful to guarantee that `#[naked]` functions NEVER contain any instructions besides those in the `naked_asm!` block.
# unresolved questions
None
r? ``@Amanieu``
I've validated the tests on x86_64 and aarch64
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #139946 (fix missing word in comment)
- #139982 (SystemTime doc tweaks)
- #140009 (docs(LocalKey<T>): clarify that T's Drop shouldn't panic)
- #140021 (Don't ICE on pending obligations from deep normalization in a loop)
- #140029 (Relocate tests in `tests/ui`)
- #140030 (Fix autodiff debug builds)
- #140120 (Use `output_base_dir` for `mir_dump_dir`)
- #140121 (Document why CodeStats::type_sizes is public)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Document why CodeStats::type_sizes is public
As indicated in [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139876#issuecomment-2808932673) from #139876
> Need some comment, otherwise this pub can be eventually removed as unused.
r? `@nnethercote`
|
|
Use `output_base_dir` for `mir_dump_dir`
It just occurred to me that the problem might be due to multiple revisions using the same dump directory (and therefore deleting the other revision's dir). This fixes that by simply using the normal per-test output directory, which is revision safe.
|
|
Fix autodiff debug builds
r? `@oli-obk`
closes: #139704
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124509
|
|
Relocate tests in `tests/ui`
Part of #133895
Moved tests from a top-level directory into a more appropriate subdirectory.
If there is anything else that could be improved, please let me know!
r? jieyouxu
|
|
Don't ICE on pending obligations from deep normalization in a loop
See the comment I left inline in `compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/normalize.rs`.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133868
r? lcnr
|
|
docs(LocalKey<T>): clarify that T's Drop shouldn't panic
Clarify that should a TLS destructor panics, the process will abort.
Also, an abort may be obfuscated as the process can be terminated with `SIGSEGV` or [`STATUS_STACK_BUFFER_OVERRUN`](https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20190108-00/?p=100655) (i.e., `SIGABRT` is not guaranteed), so explicitly prints that the process was aborted.
Context:
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/status-stack-buffer-overrun-on-windows-without-any-usage-of-unsafe/128417
``@rustbot`` label -T-compiler
|
|
SystemTime doc tweaks
* Change the `UNIX_EPOCH` link in the `SystemTime` docs to point to the associated constant, not the module level constant. The former seems to be the recommended way to access it, since aiui the only reason the module constant exists in the first place is that associated constants weren't stable yet at the time.
* Reword the comment in the `SystemTime` example - "an error occurred!" is a tad misleading; I feel like it implies a system error out of our control while `SystemTimeError` is more of a logic error.
I was originally just gonna do the first thing but I noticed the second and figured I may as well.
I'm also somewhat surprised that there aren't more in-depth module level docs for `std::time`; they don't even mention `SystemTime` at all. I might make another PR for that but mainly just wanted to flag it.
|
|
fix missing word in comment
a very simple fix, rectifying a situation in which a word was accidentally .
|
