| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
r=workingjubilee
c-variadic: allow c-variadic inherent and trait methods
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44930
Continuing the work of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146342, allow inherent and trait methods to be c-variadic. However, a trait that contains a c-variadic method is no longer dyn-compatible.
There is, presumably, some way to make c-variadic methods dyn-compatible. However currently, we don't have confidence that it'll work reliably: when methods from a `dyn` object are cast to a function pointer, a `ReifyShim` is created. If that shim is c-variadic, it would need to forward the C variable argument list.
That does appear to work, because the `va_list` is not represented in MIR at all in this case, so the registers from the call site are untouched by the shim and can be read by the actual implementation. That just does not seem like a solid implementation.
Also, intuitively, why would c-variadic function, primarily needed for FFI, need to be used with `dyn` objects at all? We can revisit this limitation if a need arises.
r? `@workingjubilee`
|
|
|
|
but a C-variadic method makes a trait dyn-incompatible. That is because
methods from dyn traits, when cast to a function pointer, create a shim.
That shim can't really forward the c-variadic arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is no reason this should not work, really, we're just cutting some scope for now
|
|
|
|
|
|
stabilize c-style varargs for sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs
This has been split up so the PR now only contains the extended_varargs_abi_support stabilization; "system" has been moved to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145954.
**Previous (combined) PR description:**
This stabilizes extern block declarations of variadic functions with the system, sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs ABIs. This corresponds to the extended_varargs_abi_support and extern_system_varargs feature gates.
The feature gates were split up since it seemed like there might be further discussion needed for what exactly "system" ABI variadic functions should do, but a [consensus](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136946#issuecomment-2967847553) has meanwhile been reached: they shall behave like "C" functions. IOW, the ABI of a "system" function is (bold part is new in this PR):
- "stdcall" for win32 targets **for non-variadic functions**
- "C" for everything else
This had been previously stabilized *without FCP* in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116161, which got reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136897. There was also a "fun" race condition involved with the system ABI being [added](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119587) to the list of variadic-supporting ABIs between the creation and merge of rust-lang/rust#116161.
There was a question raised [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116161#issuecomment-1983829513) whether t-lang even needs to be involved for a change like this. Not sure if that has meanwhile been clarified? The behavior of the "system" ABI (a Rust-specific ABI) definitely feels like t-lang territory to me.
Fixes rust-lang/rust#100189
Cc `@rust-lang/lang`
# Stabilization report
> ## General design
> ### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
AFAIK there is no RFC. The tracking issues are
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100189
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136946
> ### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
The only controversial point is whether "system" ABI functions should support variadics.
- Pro: This allows crates like windows-rs to consistently use "system", see e.g. https://github.com/microsoft/windows-rs/issues/3626.
- Cons: `@workingjubilee` had some implementation concerns, but I think those have been [resolved](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136946#issuecomment-2967847553). EDIT: turns out Jubilee still has concerns (she mentioned that in a DM); I'll let her express those.
Note that "system" is already a magic ABI we introduced to "do the right thing". This just makes it do the right thing in more cases. In particular, it means that on Windows one can almost always just do
```rust
extern "system" {
// put all the things here
}
```
and it'll do the right thing, rather than having to split imports into non-varargs and varargs, with the varargs in a separate `extern "C"` block (and risking accidentally putting a non-vararg there).
(I am saying "almost" always because some Windows API functions actually use cdecl, not stdcall, on x86. Those of course need to go in `extern "C"` blocks.)
> ### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
Actually defining variadic functions in Rust remains unstable, under the [c_variadic feature gate](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44930).
> ## Has a Call for Testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
>
> Does any OSS nightly users use this feature? For instance, a useful indication might be "search <grep.app> for `#![feature(FEATURE_NAME)]` and had `N` results".
There was no call for testing.
A search brings up https://github.com/rust-osdev/uefi-rs/blob/main/uefi-raw/src/table/boot.rs using this for "efiapi". This doesn't seem widely used, but it is an "obvious" gap in our support for c-variadics.
> ## Implementation quality
All rustc does here is forward the ABI to LLVM so there's lot a lot to say here...
> ### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
>
> An example for async closures: <https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/coroutine-closures.html>.
The check for allowed variadic ABIs is [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/9c870d30e2d6434c9e9a004b450c5ccffdf3d844/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/lib.rs#L109-L126).
The special handling of "system" is [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c24914ec8329b22ec7bcaa6ab534a784b2bd8ab9/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/abi_map.rs#L82-L85).
> ### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
>
> Consider what the "edges" of this feature are. We're particularly interested in seeing tests that assure us about exactly what nearby things we're not stabilizing.
>
> Within each test, include a comment at the top describing the purpose of the test and what set of invariants it intends to demonstrate. This is a great help to those reviewing the tests at stabilization time.
>
> - What does the test coverage landscape for this feature look like?
> - Tests for compiler errors when you use the feature wrongly or make mistakes?
> - Tests for the feature itself:
> - Limits of the feature (so failing compilation)
> - Exercises of edge cases of the feature
> - Tests that checks the feature works as expected (where applicable, `//@ run-pass`).
> - Are there any intentional gaps in test coverage?
>
> Link to test folders or individual tests (ui/codegen/assembly/run-make tests, etc.).
Prior PRs add a codegen test for all ABIs and tests actually calling extern variadic functions for sysv64 and win64:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144359
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144379
We don't have a way of executing uefi target code in the test suite, so it's unclear how to fully test efiapi. aapcs could probably be done? (But note that we have hardly an such actually-calling-functions tests for ABI things, we almost entirely rely on codegen tests.)
The test ensuring that we do *not* stabilize *defining* c-variadic functions is `tests/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-c_variadic.rs`.
> ### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
None that I am aware of.
> ### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None that I am aware of.
> ### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
`@Soveu` added sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs to the list of ABIs that allow variadics, `@beepster4096` added system. `@workingjubilee` recently refactored the ABI handling in the compiler, also affecting this feature.
> ### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
>
> Consider rustdoc, clippy, rust-analyzer, rustfmt, rustup, docs.rs.
Maybe RA needs to be taught about the new allowed ABIs? No idea how precisely they mirror what exactly rustc accepts and rejects here.
> ## Type system and execution rules
> ### What compilation-time checks are done that are needed to prevent undefined behavior?
>
> (Be sure to link to tests demonstrating that these tests are being done.)
Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs.
> ### Does the feature's implementation need checks to prevent UB or is it sound by default and needs opt in in places to perform the dangerous/unsafe operations? If it is not sound by default, what is the rationale?
Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs.
> ### Can users use this feature to introduce undefined behavior, or use this feature to break the abstraction of Rust and expose the underlying assembly-level implementation? (Describe.)
Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs.
> ### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
- https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1936
> ## Common interactions
> ### Does this feature introduce new expressions and can they produce temporaries? What are the lifetimes of those temporaries?
No.
> ### What other unstable features may be exposed by this feature?
None.
|
|
This was done in #145740 and #145947. It is causing problems for people
using r-a on anything that uses the rustc-dev rustup package, e.g. Miri,
clippy.
This repository has lots of submodules and subtrees and various
different projects are carved out of pieces of it. It seems like
`[workspace.dependencies]` will just be more trouble than it's worth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refactor lint buffering to avoid requiring a giant enum
Lint buffering currently relies on a giant enum `BuiltinLintDiag` containing all the lints that might potentially get buffered. In addition to being an unwieldy enum in a central crate, this also makes `rustc_lint_defs` a build bottleneck: it depends on various types from various crates (with a steady pressure to add more), and many crates depend on it.
Having all of these variants in a separate crate also prevents detecting when a variant becomes unused, which we can do with a dedicated type defined and used in the same crate.
Refactor this to use a dyn trait, to allow using `LintDiagnostic` types directly.
Because the existing `BuiltinLintDiag` requires some additional types in order to decorate some variants, which are only available later in `rustc_lint`, use an enum `DecorateDiagCompat` to handle both the `dyn LintDiagnostic` case and the `BuiltinLintDiag` case.
---
With the infrastructure in place, use it to migrate three of the enum variants to use `LintDiagnostic` directly, as a proof of concept and to demonstrate that the net result is a reduction in code size and a removal of a boilerplate-heavy layer of indirection.
Also remove an unused `BuiltinLintDiag` variant.
|
|
|
|
Lint buffering currently relies on a giant enum `BuiltinLintDiag`
containing all the lints that might potentially get buffered. In
addition to being an unwieldy enum in a central crate, this also makes
`rustc_lint_defs` a build bottleneck: it depends on various types from
various crates (with a steady pressure to add more), and many crates
depend on it.
Having all of these variants in a separate crate also prevents detecting
when a variant becomes unused, which we can do with a dedicated type
defined and used in the same crate.
Refactor this to use a dyn trait, to allow using `LintDiagnostic` types
directly.
This requires boxing, but all of this is already on the slow path
(emitting an error).
Because the existing `BuiltinLintDiag` requires some additional types in
order to decorate some variants, which are only available later in
`rustc_lint`, use an enum `DecorateDiagCompat` to handle both the `dyn
LintDiagnostic` case and the `BuiltinLintDiag` case.
|
|
|
|
Gate static closures behind a parser feature
I'd like to gate `static ||` closures behind a feature gate, since we shouldn't allow people to take advantage of this syntax if it's currently unstable. Right now, since it's only rejected after ast lowering, it's accessible to macros.
Let's crater this to see if we can claw it back without breaking anyone's code.
|
|
Enforce correct number of arguments for `"x86-interrupt"` functions
Tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#40180
Partially fixes rust-lang/rust#132835
`````@rustbot````` label: +F-abi_x86_interrupt +A-LLVM +O-x86_64 +O-x86_32 +A-ABI
|
|
|
|
|
|
`ModKind::Loaded` has an `inline` field and a `had_parse_error` field.
If the `inline` field is `Inline::Yes` then `had_parse_error` must be
`Ok(())`.
This commit moves the `had_parse_error` field into the `Inline::No`
variant. This makes it impossible to create the nonsensical combination
of `inline == Inline::Yes` and `had_parse_error = Err(_)`.
|
|
fix: Reject async assoc fns of const traits/impls in ast_passes
Fixes rust-lang/rust#117629
|
|
|
|
r=davidtwco
compiler: Allow `extern "interrupt" fn() -> !`
While reviewing rust-lang/rust#142633 I overlooked a few details because I was kind of excited.
- Fixes rust-lang/rust#143072
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a technically a breaking change for what can be parsed in
`#[cfg(false)]`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tweak auto trait errors
Make suggestions to remove params and super traits verbose and make spans more accurate.
```
error[E0567]: auto traits cannot have generic parameters
--> $DIR/auto-trait-validation.rs:6:19
|
LL | auto trait Generic<T> {}
| -------^^^
| |
| auto trait cannot have generic parameters
error[E0568]: auto traits cannot have super traits or lifetime bounds
--> $DIR/auto-trait-validation.rs:8:20
|
LL | auto trait Bound : Copy {}
| ----- ^^^^
| |
| auto traits cannot have super traits or lifetime bounds
```
```
error[E0380]: auto traits cannot have associated items
--> $DIR/issue-23080.rs:5:8
|
LL | unsafe auto trait Trait {
| ----- auto traits cannot have associated items
LL | fn method(&self) {
| ^^^^^^
```
|
|
Make suggestions to remove params and super traits tool-only, and make
the suggestion span more accurate.
```
error[E0567]: auto traits cannot have generic parameters
--> $DIR/auto-trait-validation.rs:6:19
|
LL | auto trait Generic<T> {}
| -------^^^
| |
| auto trait cannot have generic parameters
error[E0568]: auto traits cannot have super traits or lifetime bounds
--> $DIR/auto-trait-validation.rs:8:20
|
LL | auto trait Bound : Copy {}
| ----- ^^^^
| |
| auto traits cannot have super traits or lifetime bounds
```
```
error[E0380]: auto traits cannot have associated items
--> $DIR/issue-23080.rs:5:8
|
LL | unsafe auto trait Trait {
| ----- auto traits cannot have associated items
LL | fn method(&self) {
| ^^^^^^
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix some comments and related types and locals where it is obvious, e.g.
- bare_fn -> fn_ptr
- LifetimeBinderKind::BareFnType -> LifetimeBinderKind::FnPtrType
Co-authored-by: León Orell Valerian Liehr <me@fmease.dev>
|
|
Replace kw_span by full span for generic const parameters.
Small simplification extracted from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127241
|
|
|
|
setup typos check in CI
This allows to check typos in CI, currently for compiler only (to reduce commit size with fixes). With current setup, exclude list is quite short, so it worth trying?
Also includes commits with actual typo fixes.
MCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/817
typos check currently turned for:
* ./compiler
* ./library
* ./src/bootstrap
* ./src/librustdoc
After merging, PRs which enables checks for other crates (tools) can be implemented too.
Found typos will **not break** other jobs immediately: (tests, building compiler for perf run). Job will be marked as red on completion in ~ 20 secs, so you will not forget to fix it whenever you want, before merging pr.
Check typos: `python x.py test tidy --extra-checks=spellcheck`
Apply typo fixes: `python x.py test tidy --extra-checks=spellcheck:fix` (in case if there only 1 suggestion of each typo)
Current fail in this pr is expected and shows how typo errors emitted. Commit with error will be removed after r+.
|
|
|
|
Remove let_chains unstable feature
Per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53667#issuecomment-3016742982 (but then I also noticed rust-lang/rust#140722)
This replaces the feature gate with a parser error that says let chains require 2024.
A lot of tests were using the unstable feature. I either added edition:2024 to the test or split out the parts that require 2024.
|
