| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
Implement RFC3695 Allow boolean literals as cfg predicates
This PR implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695: allow boolean literals as cfg predicates, i.e. `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)`.
r? `@nnethercote` *(or anyone with parser knowledge)*
cc `@clubby789`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support clobber_abi and vector/access registers (clobber-only) in s390x inline assembly
This supports `clobber_abi` which is one of the requirements of stabilization mentioned in #93335.
This also supports vector registers (as `vreg`) and access registers (as `areg`) as clobber-only, which need to support clobbering of them to implement clobber_abi.
Refs:
- "1.2.1.1. Register Preservation Rules" section in ELF Application Binary Interface s390x Supplement, Version 1.6.1 (lzsabi_s390x.pdf in https://github.com/IBM/s390x-abi/releases/tag/v1.6.1)
- Register definition in LLVM:
- Vector registers https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19.1.0/llvm/lib/Target/SystemZ/SystemZRegisterInfo.td#L249
- Access registers https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19.1.0/llvm/lib/Target/SystemZ/SystemZRegisterInfo.td#L332
I have three questions:
- ~~ELF Application Binary Interface s390x Supplement says that `cc` (condition code, bits 18-19 of PSW) is "Volatile".
However, we do not have a register class for `cc` and instead mark `cc` as clobbered unless `preserves_flags` is specified (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111331).
Therefore, in the current implementation, if both `preserves_flags` and `clobber_abi` are specified, `cc` is not marked as clobbered. Is this okay? Or even if `preserves_flags` is used, should `cc` be marked as clobbered if `clobber_abi` is used?~~ UPDATE: resolved https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130630#issuecomment-2367923121
- ~~ELF Application Binary Interface s390x Supplement says that `pm` (program mask, bits 20-23 of PSW) is "Cleared".
There does not appear to be any registers associated with this in either [LLVM](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-19.1.0/llvm/lib/Target/SystemZ/SystemZRegisterInfo.td) or [GCC](https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/33ccc1314dcdb0b988a9276ca6b6ce9b07bea21e/gcc/config/s390/s390.h#L407-L431), so at this point I don't see any way other than to just ignore it. Is this okay as-is?~~ UPDATE: resolved https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130630#issuecomment-2367923121
- Is "areg" a good name for register class name for access registers? It may be a bit confusing between that and `reg_addr`, which uses the “a” constraint (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119431)...
Note:
- GCC seems to [recognize only `a0` and `a1`](https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/33ccc1314dcdb0b988a9276ca6b6ce9b07bea21e/gcc/config/s390/s390.h#L428-L429), and using `a[2-15]` [causes errors](https://godbolt.org/z/a46vx8jjn).
Given that cg_gcc has a similar problem with other architecture (https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc_codegen_gcc/issues/485), I don't feel this is a blocker for this PR, but it is worth mentioning here.
- `vreg` should be able to accept `#[repr(simd)]` types as input if the `vector` target feature added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127506 is enabled, but core_arch has no s390x vector type and both `#[repr(simd)]` and `core::simd` are unstable, so I have not implemented it in this PR. EDIT: And supporting it is probably more complex than doing the equivalent on other architectures... https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/88245#issuecomment-905559591
cc `@uweigand`
r? `@Amanieu`
`@rustbot` label +O-SystemZ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Begin experimental support for pin reborrowing
This commit adds basic support for reborrowing `Pin` types in argument position. At the moment it only supports reborrowing `Pin<&mut T>` as `Pin<&mut T>` by inserting a call to `Pin::as_mut()`, and only in argument position (not as the receiver in a method call).
This PR makes the following example compile:
```rust
#![feature(pin_ergonomics)]
fn foo(_: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
}
fn bar(mut x: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
foo(x);
foo(x);
}
```
Previously, you would have had to write `bar` as:
```rust
fn bar(mut x: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
foo(x.as_mut());
foo(x);
}
```
Tracking:
- #130494
r? `@compiler-errors`
|
|
inline assembly
|
|
|
|
Generating a call to `as_mut()` let to more restrictive borrows than
what reborrowing usually gives us. Instead, we change the desugaring to
reborrow the pin internals directly which makes things more expressive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
path
|
|
instead of path
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
items instead of paths
|
|
|
|
|
|
of paths
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This commit adds basic support for reborrowing `Pin` types in argument
position. At the moment it only supports reborrowing `Pin<&mut T>` as
`Pin<&mut T>` by inserting a call to `Pin::as_mut()`, and only in
argument position (not as the receiver in a method call).
|
|
|
|
Rescope temp lifetime in if-let into IfElse with migration lint
Tracking issue #124085
This PR shortens the temporary lifetime to cover only the pattern matching and consequent branch of a `if let`.
At the expression location, means that the lifetime is shortened from previously the deepest enclosing block or statement in Edition 2021. This warrants an Edition change.
Coming with the Edition change, this patch also implements an edition lint to warn about the change and a safe rewrite suggestion to preserve the 2021 semantics in most cases.
Related to #103108.
Related crater runs: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129466.
|
|
...and remove the `const_arg_path` feature gate as a result. It was only
a stopgap measure to fix the regression that the new lowering introduced
(which should now be fixed by this PR).
|
|
Remove needless returns detected by clippy in the compiler
|
|
So that it doesn't fail with `forbid(missing_docs)`
Fixes #130218
|
|
apply rules by span edition
|
|
Also emit `missing_docs` lint with `--test` to fulfil expectations
This PR removes the "test harness" suppression of the `missing_docs` lint to be able to fulfil `#[expect]` (expectations) as it is now "relevant".
I think the goal was to maybe avoid false-positive while linting on public items under `#[cfg(test)]` but with effective visibility we should no longer have any false-positive.
Another possibility would be to query the lint level and only emit the lint if it's of expect level, but that is even more hacky.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130021
try-job: x86_64-gnu-aux
|
|
bootstrap `naked_asm!` for `compiler-builtins`
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
parent PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128651
in this PR, `naked_asm!` is added as an alias for `asm!` with one difference: `options(noreturn)` is always enabled by `naked_asm!`. That makes it future-compatible for when `naked_asm!` starts disallowing `options(noreturn)` later.
The `naked_asm!` macro must be introduced first so that we can upgrade `compiler-builtins` to use it, and can then change the implementation of `naked_asm!` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128651
I've added some usages for `naked_asm!` in the tests, so we can be confident that it works, but I've left upgrading the whole test suite to the parent PR.
r? ``@Amanieu``
|
|
|
|
|
|
in this commit, `naked_asm!` is an alias for `asm!` with one difference: `options(noreturn)` is always enabled by `naked_asm!`. That makes it future-compatible for when `naked_asm!` starts disallowing `options(noreturn)` later.
|
|
Add Suggestions for Misspelled Keywords
Fixes #97793
This PR detects misspelled keywords using two heuristics:
1. Lowercasing the unexpected identifier.
2. Using edit distance to find a keyword similar to the unexpected identifier.
However, it does not detect each and every misspelled keyword to
minimize false positives and ambiguities. More details about the
implementation can be found in the comments.
|
|
This PR detects misspelled keywords using two heuristics:
1. Lowercasing the unexpected identifier.
2. Using edit distance to find a keyword similar to the unexpected identifier.
However, it does not detect each and every misspelled keyword to
minimize false positives and ambiguities. More details about the
implementation can be found in the comments.
|
|
Add an internal lint that warns when accessing untracked data
Some methods access data that is not tracked by the query system and should be used with caution. As suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128815#issuecomment-2275488683, in this PR I propose a lint (modeled on the `potential_query_instability` lint) that warns when using some specially-annotatted functions.
I can't tell myself if this lint would be that useful, compared to renaming `Steal::is_stolen` to `is_stolen_untracked`. This would depend on whether there are other functions we'd want to lint like this. So far it seems they're called `*_untracked`, which may be clear enough.
r? ``@oli-obk``
|
|
adetaylor:arbitrary-self-types-pointers-feature-gate, r=wesleywiser
Arbitrary self types v2: pointers feature gate.
The main `arbitrary_self_types` feature gate will shortly be reused for a new version of arbitrary self types which we are amending per [this RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3519-arbitrary-self-types-v2.md). The main amendments are:
* _do_ support `self` types which can't safely implement `Deref`
* do _not_ support generic `self` types
* do _not_ support raw pointers as `self` types.
This PR relates to the last of those bullet points: this strips pointer support from the current `arbitrary_self_types` feature. We expect this to cause some amount of breakage for crates using this unstable feature to allow raw pointer self types. If that's the case, we want to know about it, and we want crate authors to know of the upcoming changes.
For now, this can be resolved by adding the new
`arbitrary_self_types_pointers` feature to such crates. If we determine that use of raw pointers as self types is common, then we may maintain that as an unstable feature even if we come to stabilize the rest of the `arbitrary_self_types` support in future. If we don't hear that this PR is causing breakage, then perhaps we don't need it at all, even behind an unstable feature gate.
[Tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874)
This is [step 4 of the plan outlined here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874#issuecomment-2122179688)
|
|
|
|
Add `unreachable_pub`, round 4
A follow-up to #129732.
r? `@Urgau`
|
|
|
