| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rename Receiver -> LegacyReceiver
As part of the "arbitrary self types v2" project, we are going to replace the current `Receiver` trait with a new mechanism based on a new, different `Receiver` trait.
This PR renames the old trait to get it out the way. Naming is hard. Options considered included:
* HardCodedReceiver (because it should only be used for things in the standard library, and hence is sort-of hard coded)
* LegacyReceiver
* TargetLessReceiver
* OldReceiver
These are all bad names, but fortunately this will be temporary. Assuming the new mechanism proceeds to stabilization as intended, the legacy trait will be removed altogether.
Although we expect this trait to be used only in the standard library, we suspect it may be in use elsehwere, so we're landing this change separately to identify any surprising breakages.
It's known that this trait is used within the Rust for Linux project; a patch is in progress to remove their dependency.
This is a part of the arbitrary self types v2 project,
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3519
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874
r? `@wesleywiser`
|
|
As part of the "arbitrary self types v2" project, we are going to
replace the current `Receiver` trait with a new mechanism based on a
new, different `Receiver` trait.
This PR renames the old trait to get it out the way. Naming is hard.
Options considered included:
* HardCodedReceiver (because it should only be used for things in the
standard library, and hence is sort-of hard coded)
* LegacyReceiver
* TargetLessReceiver
* OldReceiver
These are all bad names, but fortunately this will be temporary.
Assuming the new mechanism proceeds to stabilization as intended, the
legacy trait will be removed altogether.
Although we expect this trait to be used only in the standard library,
we suspect it may be in use elsehwere, so we're landing this change
separately to identify any surprising breakages.
It's known that this trait is used within the Rust for Linux project; a
patch is in progress to remove their dependency.
This is a part of the arbitrary self types v2 project,
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3519
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874
r? @wesleywiser
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disable dead variant removal for `#[repr(C)]` enums.
This prevents removing dead branches from a `#[repr(C)]` enum (they now get discriminants allocated as if they were inhabited).
Implementation notes: ABI of something like
```rust
#[repr(C)]
enum Foo {
Foo(!),
}
```
is still `Uninhabited`, but its layout is now computed as if all the branches were inhabited.
This seemed to me like a proper way to do it, especially given that ABI sanity check explicitly asserts that type-level uninhabitedness implies ABI uninhabitedness.
This probably needs some sort of FCP (given that it changes `#[repr(C)]` layout, which is a stable guarantee), but I’m not sure how to call for one or which team is the most relevant.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/500.
|
|
Co-authored-by: Ralf Jung <post@ralfj.de>
|
|
See https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/500.
|
|
|
|
|
|
also update csky comment in abi/compatibility test
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This commit adds a new target called `wasm32-wasip1` to rustc.
This new target is explained in these two MCPs:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/607
* https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/695
In short, the previous `wasm32-wasi` target is going to be renamed to
`wasm32-wasip1` to better live alongside the [new
`wasm32-wasip2` target](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119616).
This new target is added alongside the `wasm32-wasi` target and has the
exact same definition as the previous target. This PR is effectively a
rename of `wasm32-wasi` to `wasm32-wasip1`. Note, however, that
as explained in rust-lang/compiler-team#695 the previous `wasm32-wasi`
target is not being removed at this time. This change will reach stable
Rust before even a warning about the rename will be printed. At this
time this change is just the start where a new target is introduced and
users can start migrating if they support only Nightly for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
guarantee that char and u32 are ABI-compatible
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116894 we added a guarantee that `char` has the same alignment as `u32`, but there is still one axis where these types could differ: function call ABI. So let's nail that down as well: in a function signature, `char` and `u32` are completely equivalent.
This is a new stable guarantee, so it will need t-lang approval.
|
|
Ensure sanity of all computed ABIs
This moves the ABI sanity assertions from the codegen backend to the ABI computation logic. Sadly, due to past mistakes, we [have to](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117351#issuecomment-1788495503) be able to compute a sane ABI for nonsensical function types like `extern "C" fn(str) -> str`. So to make the sanity check pass we first need to make all ABI adjustment deal with unsized types... and we have no shared infrastructure for those adjustments, so that's a bunch of copy-paste. At least we have assertions failing loudly when one accidentally sets a different mode for an unsized argument.
To achieve this, this re-lands the parts of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80594 that got reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81388. To avoid breaking wasm ABI again, that ABI now explicitly opts-in to the (wrong, broken) ABI that we currently keep for backwards compatibility. That's still better than having *every* ABI use the wrong broken default!
Cc `@bjorn3`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115845
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fix homogeneous_aggregate not ignoring some ZST
This is an ABI-breaking change, because it fixes bugs in our ABI code. I'm not sure what that means for this PR, we don't really have a process for such changes, do we? I can only hope nobody relied on the old buggy behavior.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
repr(transparent) unions
|
|
|
|
things to be compatible
|
