| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|
|
|
Stabilize `abi_efiapi` feature
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65815
Closes #65815
|
|
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65815
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stabilize default_alloc_error_handler
Tracking issue: #66741
This turns `feature(default_alloc_error_handler)` on by default, which causes the compiler to automatically generate a default OOM handler which panics if `#[alloc_error_handler]` is not provided.
The FCP completed over 2 years ago but the stabilization was blocked due to an issue with unwinding. This was fixed by #88098 so stabilization can be unblocked.
Closes #66741
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stabilize the `instruction_set` feature
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74727
FCP is complete on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74727#issuecomment-1242773253
r? `@pnkfelix` and/or `@nikomatsakis`
cc `@xd009642`
Signed-off-by: Yuki Okushi <jtitor@2k36.org>
|
|
Closes #66741
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed-off-by: Yuki Okushi <jtitor@2k36.org>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit 326646074940222d602f3683d0559088690830f4.
This is the revert against master, the beta revert was already done in #100538.
|
|
|
|
# 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
|
|
|
|
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`
|
|
|
|
Signed-off-by: Nick Cameron <nrc@ncameron.org>
|
|
|
|
|
|
specifically
|
|
This is a continuation of #60109, which noted that while the ADX
intrinsics were stabilized, the corresponding target feature never was.
This PR follows the same general structure and stabilizes the ADX target
feature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stabilize `#[cfg(panic = "...")]`
[Stabilization PR](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/stabilization_guide.html#stabilization-pr) for #77443
|
|
This was not intended to be stabilized yet.
|
|
the feature
|
|
Closes #32976
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This should significantly reduce the frequency of merge conflicts.
|
|
Works as expected, and there are widespread reports of success with it,
as well as interest in it.
|
|
This stabilizes dereferencing immutable raw pointers in const contexts.
It does not stabilize `*mut T` dereferencing. This is placed behind the
`const_raw_mut_ptr_deref` feature gate.
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit 7a62f29f3171767090949778ce0f161e930706b9.
|
|
According to the release notes and its PR milestone, it was stabilized
in 1.56.0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upgrade to LLVM 13
Work in progress update to LLVM 13. Main changes:
* InlineAsm diagnostics reported using SrcMgr diagnostic kind are now handled. Previously these used a separate diag handler.
* Codegen tests are updated for additional attributes.
* Some data layouts have changed.
* Switch `#[used]` attribute from `llvm.used` to `llvm.compiler.used` to avoid SHF_GNU_RETAIN flag introduced in https://reviews.llvm.org/D97448, which appears to trigger a bug in older versions of gold.
* Set `LLVM_INCLUDE_TESTS=OFF` to avoid Python 3.6 requirement.
Upstream issues:
* ~~https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51210 (InlineAsm diagnostic reporting for module asm)~~ Fixed by https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/1558bb80c01b695ce12642527cbfccf16cf54ece.
* ~~https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51476 (Miscompile on AArch64 due to incorrect comparison elimination)~~ Fixed by https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/81b106584f2baf33e09be2362c35c1bf2f6bfe94.
* https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51207 (Can't set custom section flags anymore). Problematic change reverted in our fork, https://reviews.llvm.org/D107216 posted for upstream revert.
* https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51211 (Regression in codegen for #83623). This is an optimization regression that we may likely have to eat for this release. The fix for #83623 was based on an incorrect premise, and this needs to be properly addressed in the MergeICmps pass.
The [compile-time impact](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=ef9549b6c0efb7525c9b012148689c8d070f9bc0&end=0983094463497eec22d550dad25576a894687002) is mixed, but quite positive as LLVM upgrades go.
The LLVM 13 final release is scheduled for Sep 21st. The current nightly is scheduled for stable release on Oct 21st.
r? `@ghost`
|