| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
This change allows to compile no_std applications for the QNX Neutrino
realtime operating system for ARM 64 bit CPUs.
Tested with QNX Neutrino 7.1.
|
|
This commit is aimed at making compiler generated entry functions
(Basically just C `main` right now) more generic so other targets can do
similar things for custom entry. This was initially implemented as part
of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100316.
Currently, this moves the entry function name and Call convention to the
target spec.
Signed-off-by: Ayush Singh <ayushsingh1325@gmail.com>
|
|
Use aapcs for efiapi calling convention on arm
On arm, [llvm treats the C calling convention as `aapcs` on soft-float targets and `aapcs-vfp` on hard-float targets](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/issues/116#issuecomment-261057422). UEFI specifies in the arm calling convention that [floating point extensions aren't used](https://uefi.org/specs/UEFI/2.10/02_Overview.html#detailed-calling-convention), so always translate `efiapi` to `aapcs` on arm.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65815
|
|
Add loongarch64 abi support
|
|
Limit efiapi calling convention to supported arches
Supported architectures in UEFI are described here:
https://uefi.org/specs/UEFI/2.10/02_Overview.html#calling-conventions
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65815
|
|
Remove linuxkernel targets
These are not used by the actual Rust-for-Linux project, so they're mostly just confusing.
|
|
Cleanup Apple-related code in rustc_target
While working on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103455, the consistency of the `rustc_target` code for Apple's platforms was "kind of bad." There were two "base" files (`apple_base.rs` and `apple_sdk_base.rs`) that the targets each pulled some parts out of, each and all of them were written slightly differently, and sometimes missed comments other implementations had.
So to hopefully make future maintenance, like implementing https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/556, easier, this makes all of them use similar patterns and the same target base logic everywhere instead of picking bits from both. This also has some other smaller upsides like less stringly-typed functions.
|
|
fix debuginfo for windows_gnullvm_base.rs
These lines (including the FIXME comment) were added to windows_gnu_base.rs in cf2c492ef8c87c049b4e3a62f43c841aafc88cba but windows_gnullvm_base.rs was not updated. This resulted in an error `LLVM ERROR: dwo only supported with ELF and Wasm` attempting to build on aarch64-pc-windows-gnullvm.
See also https://github.com/msys2/MINGW-packages/pull/13921#issuecomment-1304391707
/cc ```@mati865``` ```@davidtwco```
r? ```@davidtwco```
|
|
These lines (including the FIXME comment) were added to windows_gnu_base.rs in cf2c492ef8c87c049b4e3a62f43c841aafc88cba but windows_gnullvm_base.rs was not updated. This resulted in an error `LLVM ERROR: dwo only supported with ELF and Wasm` attempting to build on aarch64-pc-windows-gnullvm.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Drake <github@jdrake.com>
|
|
On arm, llvm treats the C calling convention as `aapcs` on soft-float
targets and `aapcs-vfp` on hard-float targets [1]. UEFI specifies in the
arm calling convention that floating point extensions aren't used [2],
so always translate `efiapi` to `aapcs` on arm.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/issues/116#issuecomment-261057422
[2]: https://uefi.org/specs/UEFI/2.10/02_Overview.html#detailed-calling-convention
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65815
|
|
Supported architectures in UEFI are described here:
https://uefi.org/specs/UEFI/2.10/02_Overview.html#calling-conventions
Changes to tests modeled on 8240e7aa101815e2009c7d03b33dd2566d843e73.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65815
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are not used by the actual Rust-for-Linux project, so they're mostly just confusing.
|
|
Fixed consistency of Apple simulator target's ABI
Currently there's a few Apple device simulator targets that are inconsistent since some set `target_abi = "sim"` (the correct thing to do) while a bunch of others don't set anything (`""`). Due to this its very hard to reliability check if some Rust code is running inside a simulator. This changes all of them to do the same thing and set `sim` as their `target_abi`.
The new way to identity a simulator during compilation is as simple as `cfg(all(target_vendor="apple", target_abi = "sim"))` or even `cfg(target_abi = "sim")` being less pedantic about it.
The issues with the current form (and inspiration for this) are also summarized in `@thomcc's` [Tweet](https://twitter.com/at_tcsc/status/1576685244702691328).
|
|
Add a tier 3 target for the Sony PlayStation 1
This adds a tier 3 target, `mipsel-sony-psx`, for the Sony PlayStation 1. I've tested it pretty thoroughly with [this SDK](https://github.com/ayrtonm/psx-sdk-rs) I wrote for it.
From the [tier 3 target policy](https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/target-tier-policy.html#tier-3-target-policy) (I've omitted the subpoints for brevity, but read over everything)
> A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
I'd be the designated developer
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important even for a tier 3 target.
The target name follows the conventions of the existing PSP target (`mipsel-sony-psp`) and uses `psx` following the convention of the broader [PlayStation homebrew community](https://psx-spx.consoledev.net/).
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
No legal issues with this target.
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
:+1:
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
The psx supports `core` and `alloc`, but will likely not support `std` anytime soon.
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
This target has an SDK and a `cargo-psx` tool for formatting binaries as psx executables. Documentation and examples are provided in the [psx-sdk-rs README](https://github.com/ayrtonm/psx-sdk-rs#psx-sdk-rs), the SDK and cargo tool are both available through crates.io and docs.rs has [SDK documentation](https://docs.rs/psx/latest/psx/).
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via `@)` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
:+1:
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
No problem
|
|
This patch makes it possible to use varargs for calling conventions,
which are either based on C (like efiapi) or C is based
on them (for example sysv64 and win64).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rustc_target: Fix json target specs using LLD linker flavors in link args
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/101988#issuecomment-1272407248 (a regression introduced by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/101988).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In accordance with the design from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/96827#issuecomment-1208441595
|
|
|
|
Enable inline stack probes on X86 with LLVM 16
The known problems with x86 inline-asm stack probes have been solved on LLVM main (16), so this flips the switch. Anyone using bleeding-edge LLVM with rustc can start testing this, as I have done locally. We'll get more direct rust-ci when LLVM 16 branches and we start our upgrade, and we can always patch or disable it then if we find new problems.
The previous attempt was #77885, reverted in #84708.
|
|
|
|
LLVM [D131158] changed the SystemZ data layout to always set 64-bit
vector alignment, which used to be conditional on the "vector" feature.
[D131158]: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131158
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #100734 (Split out async_fn_in_trait into a separate feature)
- #101664 (Note if mismatched types have a similar name)
- #101815 (Migrated the rustc_passes annotation without effect diagnostic infrastructure)
- #102042 (Distribute rust-docs-json via rustup.)
- #102066 (rustdoc: remove unnecessary `max-width` on headers)
- #102095 (Deduplicate two functions that would soon have been three)
- #102104 (Set 'exec-env:RUST_BACKTRACE=0' in const-eval-select tests)
- #102112 (Allow full relro on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Allow full relro on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
This was previously limited to partial relro, citing issues on RHEL6,
but that's no longer a supported platform since #95026. We have long
been enabling full relro in RHEL7's own Rust builds for ppc64, without
trouble, so it should be fine to drop this workaround.
|
|
|
|
Update rustc's information on Android's sanitizers
This patch updates sanitizer support definitions for Android inside the compiler. It also adjusts the logic to make sure no pre-built sanitizer runtime libraries are emitted as these are instead provided dynamically on Android targets.
|
|
This was previously limited to partial relro, citing issues on RHEL6,
but that's no longer a supported platform since #95026. We have long
been enabling full relro in RHEL7's own Rust builds for ppc64, without
trouble, so it should be fine to drop this workaround.
|
|
Add armv5te-none-eabi and thumbv5te-none-eabi targets
Creates two new Tier 3 targets, `armv5te-none-eabi` and `thumbv5te-none-eabi`. They are for the same target architecture (armv5te), but one defaults to the A32 instruction set and the other defaults to T32. Based on the existing `armv4t-none-eabi` and `thumbv4t-none-eabi` targets.
My particular use case for these targets is Nintendo DS homebrew, but they should be usable for any armv5te system.
Going through the Tier 3 target policy:
> A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
That will be me.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets.
Naming is consistent with previous targets.
>> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility.
No ambiguity here.
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
Doesn't create any legal issues.
>> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
This doesn't introduce any new licenses.
>> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Yep.
>> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
No new license requirements.
>> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries.
Everything this uses is FOSS, no proprietary required.
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
OK.
>> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
OK.
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
This is a bare-metal target with only support for `core` (and `alloc`, if the user provides an allocator).
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Documentation has been added.
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via `@)` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
OK.
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.
OK.
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
This doesn't break any other targets.
>> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
No unnecessary unconditional features here.
|
|
This patch updates sanitizier support definitions for Android inside the
compiler. It also adjusts the logic to make sure no pre-built sanitizer
runtime libraries are emitted as these are instead provided dynamically
on Android targets.
|
|
Stabilize `let else`
:tada: **Stabilizes the `let else` feature, added by [RFC 3137](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3137).** :tada:
Reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1156
closes #87335 (`let else` tracking issue)
FCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93628#issuecomment-1029383585
----------
## Stabilization report
### Summary
The feature allows refutable patterns in `let` statements if the expression is
followed by a diverging `else`:
```Rust
fn get_count_item(s: &str) -> (u64, &str) {
let mut it = s.split(' ');
let (Some(count_str), Some(item)) = (it.next(), it.next()) else {
panic!("Can't segment count item pair: '{s}'");
};
let Ok(count) = u64::from_str(count_str) else {
panic!("Can't parse integer: '{count_str}'");
};
(count, item)
}
assert_eq!(get_count_item("3 chairs"), (3, "chairs"));
```
### Differences from the RFC / Desugaring
Outside of desugaring I'm not aware of any differences between the implementation and the RFC. The chosen desugaring has been changed from the RFC's [original](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3137-let-else.html#reference-level-explanations). You can read a detailed discussion of the implementation history of it in `@cormacrelf` 's [summary](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93628#issuecomment-1041143670) in this thread, as well as the [followup](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93628#issuecomment-1046598419). Since that followup, further changes have happened to the desugaring, in #98574, #99518, #99954. The later changes were mostly about the drop order: On match, temporaries drop in the same order as they would for a `let` declaration. On mismatch, temporaries drop before the `else` block.
### Test cases
In chronological order as they were merged.
Added by df9a2e0687895731e12f4a2651e8d70acd08872d (#87688):
* [`ui/pattern/usefulness/top-level-alternation.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/pattern/usefulness/top-level-alternation.rs) to ensure the unreachable pattern lint visits patterns inside `let else`.
Added by 5b95df4bdc330f34213812ad65cae86ced90d80c (#87688):
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-bool-binop-init.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-bool-binop-init.rs) to ensure that no lazy boolean expressions (using `&&` or `||`) are allowed in the expression, as the RFC mandates.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-brace-before-else.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-brace-before-else.rs) to ensure that no `}` directly preceding the `else` is allowed in the expression, as the RFC mandates.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-check.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-check.rs) to ensure that `#[allow(...)]` attributes added to the entire `let` statement apply for the `else` block.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-irrefutable.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-irrefutable.rs) to ensure that the `irrefutable_let_patterns` lint fires.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-missing-semicolon.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-missing-semicolon.rs) to ensure the presence of semicolons at the end of the `let` statement.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-non-diverging.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-non-diverging.rs) to ensure the `else` block diverges.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-run-pass.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-run-pass.rs) to ensure the feature works in some simple test case settings.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-scope.rs) to ensure the bindings created by the outer `let` expression are not available in the `else` block of it.
Added by bf7c32a4477a76bfd18fdcd8f45a939cbed82d34 (#89965):
* [`ui/let-else/issue-89960.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-89960.rs) as a regression test for the ICE-on-error bug #89960 . Later in 102b9125e1cefbb8ed8408d2db3f9f7d5afddbf0 this got removed in favour of more comprehensive tests.
Added by 856541963ce95ef4f7d4a81784bb5002ccf63c93 (#89974):
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-if.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-if.rs) to test for the improved error message that points out that `let else if` is not possible.
Added by 9b45713b6c1775f0103a1ebee6ab7c6d9b781a21:
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-allow-unused.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-allow-unused.rs) as a regression test for #89807, to ensure that `#[allow(...)]` attributes added to the entire `let` statement apply for bindings created by the `let else` pattern.
Added by 61bcd8d3075471b3867428788c49f54fffe53f52 (#89841):
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-non-copy.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-non-copy.rs) to ensure that a copy is performed out of non-copy wrapper types. This mirrors `if let` behaviour. The test case bases on rustc internal changes originally meant for #89933 but then removed from the PR due to the error prior to the improvements of #89841.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-source-expr-nomove-pass.rs `](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-source-expr-nomove-pass.rs) to ensure that while there is a move of the binding in the successful case, the `else` case can still access the non-matching value. This mirrors `if let` behaviour.
Added by 102b9125e1cefbb8ed8408d2db3f9f7d5afddbf0 (#89841):
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings.rs) and [`ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings-pass.rs `](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings-pass.rs) to check `ref` and `ref mut` keywords in the pattern work correctly and error when needed.
Added by 2715c5f984fda7faa156d1c9cf91aa4934f0e00f (#89841):
* Match ergonomic tests adapted from the `rfc2005` test suite.
Added by fec8a507a27de1b08a0b95592dc8ec93bf0a321a (#89841):
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion-annotated.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion-annotated.rs) and [`ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion.rs) to check deref coercions.
#### Added since this stabilization report was originally written (2022-02-09)
Added by 76ea56667703ac06689ff1d6fba5d170fa7392a7 (#94211):
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-destructuring.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.63.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-destructuring.rs) to give a nice error message if an user tries to do an assignment with a (possibly refutable) pattern and an `else` block, like asked for in #93995.
Added by e7730dcb7eb29a10ee73f269f4dc6e9d606db0da (#94208):
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-allow-in-expr.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-allow-in-expr.rs) to test whether `#[allow(unused_variables)]` works in the expr, as well as its non presence, as well as putting it on the entire `let else` *affects* the expr, too. This was adding a missing test as pointed out by the stabilization report.
* Expansion of `ui/let-else/let-else-allow-unused.rs` and `ui/let-else/let-else-check.rs` to ensure that non-presence of `#[allow(unused)]` does issue the unused lint. This was adding a missing test case as pointed out by the stabilization report.
Added by 5bd71063b3810d977aa376d1e6dd7cec359330cc (#94208):
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-slicing-error.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-slicing-error.rs), a regression test for #92069, which got fixed without addition of a regression test. This resolves a missing test as pointed out by the stabilization report.
Added by 5374688e1d8cbcff7d1d14bb34e38fe6fe7c233e (#98574):
* [`src/test/ui/async-await/async-await-let-else.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/async-await/async-await-let-else.rs) to test the interaction of async/await with `let else`
Added by 6c529ded8674b89c46052da92399227c3b764c6a (#98574):
* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs) as a (partial) regression test for #98672
Added by 9b566401068cb8450912f6ab48f3d0e60f5cb482 (#99518):
* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temp-borrowck.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs) as a regression test for #93951
* Extension of `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to include a partial regression test for #98672 (especially regarding `else` drop order)
Added by baf9a7cb57120ec1411196214fd0d1c33fb18bf6 (#99518):
* Extension of `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to include a partial regression test for #93951, similar to `let-else-temp-borrowck.rs`
Added by 60be2de8b7b8a1c4eee7e065b8cef38ea629a6a3 (#99518):
* Extension of `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to include a program that can now be compiled thanks to borrow checker implications of #99518
Added by 47a7a91c969ed2edd12c674ca05c1baf867f6f6f (#100132):
* [`src/test/ui/let-else/issue-100103.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-100103.rs), as a regression test for #100103, to ensure that there is no ICE when doing `Err(...)?` inside else blocks.
Added by e3c5bd617d040b5ee0bc79e6e7f01772adce791b (#100443):
* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-then-diverge.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-then-diverge.rs), to verify that there is no unreachable code error with the current desugaring.
Added by 981852677c531d52f701b870bb27b45668a44d52 (#100443):
* [`src/test/ui/let-else/issue-94176.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-94176.rs), to make sure that a correct span is emitted for a missing trailing expression error. Regression test for #94176.
Added by e182d12a8493b40a557394325a3a713b6528de60 (#100434):
* [src/test/ui/unpretty/pretty-let-else.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/unpretty/pretty-let-else.rs), as a regression test to ensure pretty printing works for `let else` (this bug surfaced in many different ways)
Added by e26285603ca8b83b9d06e56f74e10e3d410553ff (#99954):
* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs) extended to contain & borrows as well, as this was identified as an earlier issue with the desugaring: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98672#issuecomment-1200196921
Added by 2d8460ef43d902f34ba2133fe38f66ee8d2fdafc (#99291):
* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs) a matrix based test for various drop order behaviour of `let else`. Especially, it verifies equality of `let` and `let else` drop orders, [resolving](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93628#issuecomment-1238498468) a [stabilization blocker](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93628#issuecomment-1055738523).
Added by 1b87ce0d4092045728c1c68282769d555706f273 (#101410):
* Edit to `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to add the `-Zvalidate-mir` flag, as a regression test for #99228
Added by af591ebe4d0cf2097a5fdc0bb710442d0f2e7876 (#101410):
* [`src/test/ui/let-else/issue-99975.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-99975.rs) as a regression test for the ICE #99975.
Added by this PR:
* `ui/let-else/let-else.rs`, a simple run-pass check, similar to `ui/let-else/let-else-run-pass.rs`.
### Things not currently tested
* ~~The `#[allow(...)]` tests check whether allow works, but they don't check whether the non-presence of allow causes a lint to fire.~~ → *test added by e7730dcb7eb29a10ee73f269f4dc6e9d606db0da*
* ~~There is no `#[allow(...)]` test for the expression, as there are tests for the pattern and the else block.~~ → *test added by e7730dcb7eb29a10ee73f269f4dc6e9d606db0da*
* ~~`let-else-brace-before-else.rs` forbids the `let ... = {} else {}` pattern and there is a rustfix to obtain `let ... = ({}) else {}`. I'm not sure whether the `.fixed` files are checked by the tooling that they compile. But if there is no such check, it would be neat to make sure that `let ... = ({}) else {}` compiles.~~ → *test added by e7730dcb7eb29a10ee73f269f4dc6e9d606db0da*
* ~~#92069 got closed as fixed, but no regression test was added. Not sure it's worth to add one.~~ → *test added by 5bd71063b3810d977aa376d1e6dd7cec359330cc*
* ~~consistency between `let else` and `if let` regarding lifetimes and drop order: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93628#issuecomment-1055738523~~ → *test added by 2d8460ef43d902f34ba2133fe38f66ee8d2fdafc*
Edit: they are all tested now.
### Possible future work / Refutable destructuring assignments
[RFC 2909](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2909-destructuring-assignment.html) specifies destructuring assignment, allowing statements like `FooBar { a, b, c } = foo();`.
As it was stabilized, destructuring assignment only allows *irrefutable* patterns, which before the advent of `let else` were the only patterns that `let` supported.
So the combination of `let else` and destructuring assignments gives reason to think about extensions of the destructuring assignments feature that allow refutable patterns, discussed in #93995.
A naive mapping of `let else` to destructuring assignments in the form of `Some(v) = foo() else { ... };` might not be the ideal way. `let else` needs a diverging `else` clause as it introduces new bindings, while assignments have a default behaviour to fall back to if the pattern does not match, in the form of not performing the assignment. Thus, there is no good case to require divergence, or even an `else` clause at all, beyond the need for having *some* introducer syntax so that it is clear to readers that the assignment is not a given (enums and structs look similar). There are better candidates for introducer syntax however than an empty `else {}` clause, like `maybe` which could be added as a keyword on an edition boundary:
```Rust
let mut v = 0;
maybe Some(v) = foo(&v);
maybe Some(v) = foo(&v) else { bar() };
```
Further design discussion is left to an RFC, or the linked issue.
|
|
|
|
pnkfelix:issue-97463-fix-aarch64-call-abi-does-not-zeroext, r=wesleywiser
Aarch64 call abi does not zeroext (and one cannot assume it does so)
Fix #97463
|
|
On later stages, the feature is already stable.
Result of running:
rg -l "feature.let_else" compiler/ src/librustdoc/ library/ | xargs sed -s -i "s#\\[feature.let_else#\\[cfg_attr\\(bootstrap, feature\\(let_else\\)#"
|
|
|
|
|
|
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100537, the relocation model
for UEFI targets was changed from PIC (the default value) to
static. There was some dicussion of this change here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100537#discussion_r952363012
It turns out that this can cause compilation to fail as described in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101377, so switch back to PIC.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101377
|
|
|
|
|
