| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
fee1-dead-contrib:stabilize_arbitrary_enum_discriminant, r=joshtriplett
Stabilize arbitrary_enum_discriminant, take 2
Documentation has been updated in https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1055. cc #86860 for previous stabilization report.
Not yet marks https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/60553 as done: need documentation in the rust reference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E0045: Use a stable non-C ABI instead
E0092: Use an atomic intrinsic that actually exists
E0161: Don't use box_syntax
E0579: Format ranges in the rustfmt style
E0622: Use the rustfmt style
E0743: Remove feature gate as it's not needed
|
|
Add `#[rustc_safe_intrinsic]`
This PR adds the `#[rustc_safe_intrinsic]` attribute as mentionned on Zulip. The goal of this attribute is to avoid keeping a list of symbols as the source for stable intrinsics, and instead rely on an attribute. This is similar to `#[rustc_const_stable]` and `#[rustc_const_unstable]`, which among other things, are used to mark the constness of intrinsic functions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
also update .stderr outputs
|
|
mpk/add-long-error-message-for-E0311
|
|
|
|
|
|
- use the simpler minimum working example from the review
- add an alterate "fix" that helps make the cause of the error more
clear
- attempt to add an improved description of what is going on
|
|
There was a partial rust code block in the readme that was invalid
because of a missing line. I inlined the code snippet into the text to
fix the error. This also improves readability a bit.
|
|
|
|
-- update summary based on review
-- rewrite explanation to be more clear and correct
|
|
# Stabilization proposal
The feature was implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/50045 by est31 and has been in nightly since 2018-05-16 (over 4 years now).
There are [no open issues][issue-label] other than the tracking issue. There is a strong consensus that `break` is the right keyword and we should not use `return`.
There have been several concerns raised about this feature on the tracking issue (other than the one about tests, which has been fixed, and an interaction with try blocks, which has been fixed).
1. nrc's original comment about cost-benefit analysis: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422235234
2. joshtriplett's comments about seeing use cases: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422281176
3. withoutboats's comments that Rust does not need more control flow constructs: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-450050630
Many different examples of code that's simpler using this feature have been provided:
- A lexer by rpjohnst which must repeat code without label-break-value: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422502014
- A snippet by SergioBenitez which avoids using a new function and adding several new return points to a function: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-427628251. This particular case would also work if `try` blocks were stabilized (at the cost of making the code harder to optimize).
- Several examples by JohnBSmith: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-434651395
- Several examples by Centril: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-440154733
- An example by petrochenkov where this is used in the compiler itself to avoid duplicating error checking code: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-443557569
- Amanieu recently provided another example related to complex conditions, where try blocks would not have helped: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1184213006
Additionally, petrochenkov notes that this is strictly more powerful than labelled loops due to macros which accidentally exit a loop instead of being consumed by the macro matchers: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-450246249
nrc later resolved their concern, mostly because of the aforementioned macro problems.
joshtriplett suggested that macros could be able to generate IR directly
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-451685983) but there are no open RFCs,
and the design space seems rather speculative.
joshtriplett later resolved his concerns, due to a symmetry between this feature and existing labelled break: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-632960804
withoutboats has regrettably left the language team.
joshtriplett later posted that the lang team would consider starting an FCP given a stabilization report: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1111269353
[issue-label]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AF-label_break_value+
## Report
+ Feature gate:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/src/test/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-label_break_value.rs
+ Diagnostics:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6b2d3d5f3cd1e553d87b5496632132565b6779d3/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs#L2629
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L749
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L1001
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/111df9e6eda1d752233482c1309d00d20a4bbf98/compiler/rustc_passes/src/loops.rs#L254
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L2079
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L1569
+ Tests:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_continue.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_unlabeled_break.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_illegal_uses.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/lint/unused_labels.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/run-pass/for-loop-while/label_break_value.rs
## Interactions with other features
Labels follow the hygiene of local variables.
label-break-value is permitted within `try` blocks:
```rust
let _: Result<(), ()> = try {
'foo: {
Err(())?;
break 'foo;
}
};
```
label-break-value is disallowed within closures, generators, and async blocks:
```rust
'a: {
|| break 'a
//~^ ERROR use of unreachable label `'a`
//~| ERROR `break` inside of a closure
}
```
label-break-value is disallowed on [_BlockExpression_]; it can only occur as a [_LoopExpression_]:
```rust
fn labeled_match() {
match false 'b: { //~ ERROR block label not supported here
_ => {}
}
}
macro_rules! m {
($b:block) => {
'lab: $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
unsafe $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
|x: u8| -> () $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
}
}
fn foo() {
m!({});
}
```
[_BlockExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/block-expr.html
[_LoopExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/loop-expr.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Gomez <guillaume1.gomez@gmail.com>
|
|
Adds a long description and unit test for the E0311 compiler error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
r=petrochenkov,GuillaumeGomez
Improve the function pointer docs
This is #97842 but for function pointers instead of tuples. The concept is basically the same.
* Reduce duplicate impls; show `fn (T₁, T₂, …, Tₙ)` and include a sentence saying that there exists up to twelve of them.
* Show `Copy` and `Clone`.
* Show auto traits like `Send` and `Sync`, and blanket impls like `Any`.
https://notriddle.com/notriddle-rustdoc-test/std/primitive.fn.html
|
|
* Reduce duplicate impls; show only the `fn (T)` and include a sentence
saying that there exists up to twelve of them.
* Show `Copy` and `Clone`.
* Show auto traits like `Send` and `Sync`, and blanket impls like `Any`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simplify memory ordering intrinsics
This changes the names of the atomic intrinsics to always fully include their memory ordering arguments.
```diff
- atomic_cxchg
+ atomic_cxchg_seqcst_seqcst
- atomic_cxchg_acqrel
+ atomic_cxchg_acqrel_release
- atomic_cxchg_acqrel_failrelaxed
+ atomic_cxchg_acqrel_relaxed
// And so on.
```
- `seqcst` is no longer implied
- The failure ordering on chxchg is no longer implied in some cases, but now always explicitly part of the name.
- `release` is no longer shortened to just `rel`. That was especially confusing, since `relaxed` also starts with `rel`.
- `acquire` is no longer shortened to just `acq`, such that the names now all match the `std::sync::atomic::Ordering` variants exactly.
- This now allows for more combinations on the compare exchange operations, such as `atomic_cxchg_acquire_release`, which is necessary for #68464.
- This PR only exposes the new possibilities through unstable intrinsics, but not yet through the stable API. That's for [a separate PR](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98383) that requires an FCP.
Suffixes for operations with a single memory order:
| Order | Before | After |
|---------|--------------|------------|
| Relaxed | `_relaxed` | `_relaxed` |
| Acquire | `_acq` | `_acquire` |
| Release | `_rel` | `_release` |
| AcqRel | `_acqrel` | `_acqrel` |
| SeqCst | (none) | `_seqcst` |
Suffixes for compare-and-exchange operations with two memory orderings:
| Success | Failure | Before | After |
|---------|---------|--------------------------|--------------------|
| Relaxed | Relaxed | `_relaxed` | `_relaxed_relaxed` |
| Relaxed | Acquire | :x: | `_relaxed_acquire` |
| Relaxed | SeqCst | :x: | `_relaxed_seqcst` |
| Acquire | Relaxed | `_acq_failrelaxed` | `_acquire_relaxed` |
| Acquire | Acquire | `_acq` | `_acquire_acquire` |
| Acquire | SeqCst | :x: | `_acquire_seqcst` |
| Release | Relaxed | `_rel` | `_release_relaxed` |
| Release | Acquire | :x: | `_release_acquire` |
| Release | SeqCst | :x: | `_release_seqcst` |
| AcqRel | Relaxed | `_acqrel_failrelaxed` | `_acqrel_relaxed` |
| AcqRel | Acquire | `_acqrel` | `_acqrel_acquire` |
| AcqRel | SeqCst | :x: | `_acqrel_seqcst` |
| SeqCst | Relaxed | `_failrelaxed` | `_seqcst_relaxed` |
| SeqCst | Acquire | `_failacq` | `_seqcst_acquire` |
| SeqCst | SeqCst | (none) | `_seqcst_seqcst` |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stabilize explicit_generic_args_with_impl_trait
This is a stabilisation PR for `explicit_generic_args_with_impl_trait`.
* [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/83701)
- [Stabilisation report](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/83701#issuecomment-1109949897)
- [FCP entered](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/83701#issuecomment-1120285703)
* [implementation PR](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86176)
* [Reference PR](https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1212)
* There is no mention of using the turbofish operator in the book (other than an entry in the operator list in the appendix), so there is no documentation to change/add there, unless we felt like we should add a section on using turbofish, but that seems orthogonal to `explicit_generic_args_with_impl_trait`
|
|
|
|
instead of snake_case for module names
|
|
|
|
Remove migrate borrowck mode
Closes #58781
Closes #43234
# Stabilization proposal
This PR proposes the stabilization of `#![feature(nll)]` and the removal of `-Z borrowck`. Current borrow checking behavior of item bodies is currently done by first infering regions *lexically* and reporting any errors during HIR type checking. If there *are* any errors, then MIR borrowck (NLL) never occurs. If there *aren't* any errors, then MIR borrowck happens and any errors there would be reported. This PR removes the lexical region check of item bodies entirely and only uses MIR borrowck. Because MIR borrowck could never *not* be run for a compiled program, this should not break any programs. It does, however, change diagnostics significantly and allows a slightly larger set of programs to compile.
Tracking issue: #43234
RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2094-nll.md
Version: 1.63 (2022-06-30 => beta, 2022-08-11 => stable).
## Motivation
Over time, the Rust borrow checker has become "smarter" and thus allowed more programs to compile. There have been three different implementations: AST borrowck, MIR borrowck, and polonius (well, in progress). Additionally, there is the "lexical region resolver", which (roughly) solves the constraints generated through HIR typeck. It is not a full borrow checker, but does emit some errors.
The AST borrowck was the original implementation of the borrow checker and was part of the initially stabilized Rust 1.0. In mid 2017, work began to implement the current MIR borrow checker and that effort ompleted by the end of 2017, for the most part. During 2018, efforts were made to migrate away from the AST borrow checker to the MIR borrow checker - eventually culminating into "migrate" mode - where HIR typeck with lexical region resolving following by MIR borrow checking - being active by default in the 2018 edition.
In early 2019, migrate mode was turned on by default in the 2015 edition as well, but with MIR borrowck errors emitted as warnings. By late 2019, these warnings were upgraded to full errors. This was followed by the complete removal of the AST borrow checker.
In the period since, various errors emitted by the MIR borrow checker have been improved to the point that they are mostly the same or better than those emitted by the lexical region resolver.
While there do remain some degradations in errors (tracked under the [NLL-diagnostics tag](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3ANLL-diagnostics), those are sufficiently small and rare enough that increased flexibility of MIR borrow check-only is now a worthwhile tradeoff.
## What is stabilized
As said previously, this does not fundamentally change the landscape of accepted programs. However, there are a [few](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3ANLL-fixed-by-NLL) cases where programs can compile under `feature(nll)`, but not otherwise.
There are two notable patterns that are "fixed" by this stabilization. First, the `scoped_threads` feature, which is a continutation of a pre-1.0 API, can sometimes emit a [weird lifetime error](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95527) without NLL. Second, actually seen in the standard library. In the `Extend` impl for `HashMap`, there is an implied bound of `K: 'a` that is available with NLL on but not without - this is utilized in the impl.
As mentioned before, there are a large number of diagnostic differences. Most of them are better, but some are worse. None are serious or happen often enough to need to block this PR. The biggest change is the loss of error code for a number of lifetime errors in favor of more general "lifetime may not live long enough" error. While this may *seem* bad, the former error codes were just attempts to somewhat-arbitrarily bin together lifetime errors of the same type; however, on paper, they end up being roughly the same with roughly the same kinds of solutions.
## What isn't stabilized
This PR does not completely remove the lexical region resolver. In the future, it may be possible to remove that (while still keeping HIR typeck) or to remove it together with HIR typeck.
## Tests
Many test outputs get updated by this PR. However, there are number of tests specifically geared towards NLL under `src/test/ui/nll`
## History
* On 2017-07-14, [tracking issue opened](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43234)
* On 2017-07-20, [initial empty MIR pass added](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/43271)
* On 2017-08-29, [RFC opened](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2094)
* On 2017-11-16, [Integrate MIR type-checker with NLL](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/45825)
* On 2017-12-20, [NLL feature complete](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/46862)
* On 2018-07-07, [Don't run AST borrowck on mir mode](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/52083)
* On 2018-07-27, [Add migrate mode](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/52681)
* On 2019-04-22, [Enable migrate mode on 2015 edition](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/59114)
* On 2019-08-26, [Don't downgrade errors on 2015 edition](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/64221)
* On 2019-08-27, [Remove AST borrowck](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/64790)
|
|
E0432: rust 2018 -> rust 2018 or later in --explain message
|
|
Add E0788 for improper #[no_coverage] usage
Essentially, this adds proper checking for the attribute (tracking issue #84605) and throws errors when it's put in obviously-wrong places, like on struct or const definitions. Most of the code is taken directly from the checks for the `#[inline]` attribute, since it's very similar.
Right now, the code only checks at the function level, but it seems reasonable to allow adding `#[no_coverage]` to individual blocks or expressions, so, for now those just throw `unused_attributes` warnings. Similarly, since there was a lot of desire to eventually allow recursive definitions as well on modules and impl blocks, these also throw `unused_attributes` instead of an error.
I'm not sure if anything has to be done since this error is technically for an unstable feature, but since an error for using unstable features will show up anyway, I think it's okay.
This is the first big piece needed for stabilising this attribute, although I personally would like to explore renaming it to `#[coverage(never)]` on a separate PR, which I will offer soon. There's a lot of discussion still to be had about that, which is why it will be kept separate.
I don't think much is needed besides adding this simple check and a UI test, but let me know if there's something else that should be added to make this happen.
|
|
Signed-off-by: Nick Cameron <nrc@ncameron.org>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove `#[rustc_deprecated]`
This removes `#[rustc_deprecated]` and introduces diagnostics to help users to the right direction (that being `#[deprecated]`). All uses of `#[rustc_deprecated]` have been converted. CI is expected to fail initially; this requires #95958, which includes converting `stdarch`.
I plan on following up in a short while (maybe a bootstrap cycle?) removing the diagnostics, as they're only intended to be short-term.
|
|
|
|
With the change to built-in duplicate checking, E0550 is no longer
emitted.
|
