Don't suggest adding the unexpected cfgs to the build-script it-self
This PR adds a check to avoid suggesting to add the unexpected cfgs inside the build-script when building the build-script it-self, as it won't have any effect, since build-scripts applies to their descended target.
Fixes#125368
Actually use TAIT instead of emulating it
`core`'s `impl_fn_for_zst` macro is just a hacky way of emulating TAIT. TAIT has become stable enough to be used [in other places](e8fbd99128/library/std/src/backtrace.rs (L431)) inside the standard library, so let's use it in `core` as well.
rustc_codegen_llvm: add support for writing summary bitcode
Typical uses of ThinLTO don't have any use for this as a standalone file, but distributed ThinLTO uses this to make the linker phase more efficient. With clang you'd do something like `clang -flto=thin -fthin-link-bitcode=foo.indexing.o -c foo.c` and then get both foo.o (full of bitcode) and foo.indexing.o (just the summary or index part of the bitcode). That's then usable by a two-stage linking process that's more friendly to distributed build systems like bazel, which is why I'm working on this area.
I talked some to `@teresajohnson` about naming in this area, as things seem to be a little confused between various blog posts and build systems. "bitcode index" and "bitcode summary" tend to be a little too ambiguous, and she tends to use "thin link bitcode" and "minimized bitcode" (which matches the descriptions in LLVM). Since the clang option is thin-link-bitcode, I went with that to try and not add a new spelling in the world.
Per `@dtolnay,` you can work around the lack of this by using `lld --thinlto-index-only` to do the indexing on regular .o files of bitcode, but that is a bit wasteful on actions when we already have all the information in rustc and could just write out the matching minimized bitcode. I didn't test that at all in our infrastructure, because by the time I learned that I already had this patch largely written.
rust-lld: fallback to rustc's sysroot if there's no path to the linker in the target sysroot
As seen in #125246, some sysroots don't expect to contain `rust-lld` and want to keep it that way, so we fallback to the default rustc sysroot if there is no path to the linker in any of the sysroot tools search paths. This is how we locate codegen-backends' dylibs already.
People also have requested an error if none of these search paths contain the self-contained linker directory, so there's also an error in that case.
r? `@petrochenkov` cc `@ehuss` `@RalfJung`
I'm not sure where we check for `rust-lld`'s existence on the targets where we use it by default, and if we just ignore it when missing or emit a warning (as I assume we don't emit an error), so I just checked for the existence of `gcc-ld`, where `cc` will look for the lld-wrapper binaries.
<sub>*Feel free to point out better ways to do this, it's the middle of the night here.*</sub>
Fixes#125246
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #122382 (Detect unused structs which implement private traits)
- #124389 (Add a warning to proc_macro::Delimiter::None that rustc currently does not respect it.)
- #125224 (Migrate `run-make/issue-53964` to `rmake`)
- #125227 (Migrate `run-make/issue-30063` to `rmake`)
- #125336 (Add dedicated definition for intrinsics)
- #125401 (Migrate `run-make/rustdoc-scrape-examples-macros` to `rmake.rs`)
- #125454 (Improve the doc of query associated_item)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
If we don't do this, some versions of LLVM (at least 17, experimentally)
will double-emit some error messages, which is how I noticed this. Given
that it seems to be costing some extra work, let's only request the
summary bitcode production if we'll actually bother writing it down,
otherwise skip it.
Improve the doc of query associated_item
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
This query also maps from a impl item to the impl item "descriptor". So it's a bit confused, I skipped it cause it doesn't say it contains impl items.
```rust
fn associated_item(tcx: TyCtxt<'_>, def_id: LocalDefId) -> ty::AssocItem {
let id = tcx.local_def_id_to_hir_id(def_id);
let parent_def_id = tcx.hir().get_parent_item(id);
let parent_item = tcx.hir().expect_item(parent_def_id.def_id);
match parent_item.kind {
hir::ItemKind::Impl(impl_) => {
if let Some(impl_item_ref) = impl_.items.iter().find(|i| i.id.owner_id.def_id == def_id)
{
let assoc_item = associated_item_from_impl_item_ref(impl_item_ref);
debug_assert_eq!(assoc_item.def_id.expect_local(), def_id);
return assoc_item;
}
}
hir::ItemKind::Trait(.., trait_item_refs) => {
if let Some(trait_item_ref) =
trait_item_refs.iter().find(|i| i.id.owner_id.def_id == def_id)
{
let assoc_item = associated_item_from_trait_item_ref(trait_item_ref);
debug_assert_eq!(assoc_item.def_id.expect_local(), def_id);
return assoc_item;
}
}
_ => {}
}
span_bug!(
parent_item.span,
"unexpected parent of trait or impl item or item not found: {:?}",
parent_item.kind
)
}
```
Migrate `run-make/issue-53964` to `rmake`
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
This is extremely similar to #125146. Could it be interesting to merge the two in some way? This one seems to do the same thing as the #125146, but with an added check that a useless lint is not shown.
Add a warning to proc_macro::Delimiter::None that rustc currently does not respect it.
It does not provide the behaviour it is indicated to provide when used in a proc_macro context.
This seems to be a bug, (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67062), but it is a long standing one, and hard to discover.
This pull request adds a warning to inform users of this issue, with a link to the relevant issue, and a version number of the last known affected rustc version.
Rewrite native thread-local storage
(part of #110897)
The current native thread-local storage implementation has become quite messy, uses indescriptive names and unnecessarily adds code to the macro expansion. This PR tries to fix that by using a new implementation that also allows more layout optimizations and potentially increases performance by eliminating unnecessary TLS accesses.
This does not change the recursive initialization behaviour I described in [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/110897#issuecomment-1525705682), so it should be a library-only change. Changing that behaviour should be quite easy now, however.
r? `@m-ou-se`
`@rustbot` label +T-libs
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #124297 (Allow coercing functions whose signature differs in opaque types in their defining scope into a shared function pointer type)
- #124516 (Allow monomorphization time const eval failures if the cause is a type layout issue)
- #124976 (rustc: Use `tcx.used_crates(())` more)
- #125210 (Cleanup: Fix up some diagnostics)
- #125409 (Rename `FrameworkOnlyWindows` to `RawDylibOnlyWindows`)
- #125416 (Use correct param-env in `MissingCopyImplementations`)
- #125421 (Rewrite `core-no-oom-handling`, `issue-24445` and `issue-38237` `run-make` tests to new `rmake.rs` format)
- #125438 (Remove unneeded string conversion)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Rewrite `core-no-oom-handling`, `issue-24445` and `issue-38237` `run-make` tests to new `rmake.rs` format
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
The test which is now called `non-pie-thread-local` has an unexplained "only-linux" flag. Could it be worth trying to remove it and changing the CI to test non-Linux platforms on it?
Use correct param-env in `MissingCopyImplementations`
We shouldn't assume the param-env is empty for this lint, since although we check the struct has no parameters, there still may be trivial where-clauses.
fixes#125394
Cleanup: Fix up some diagnostics
Several diagnostics contained their error code inside their primary message which is no bueno.
This PR moves them out of the message and turns them into structured error codes.
Also fixes another occurrence of `->` after a selector in a Fluent message which is not correct. I've fixed two other instances of this issue in #104345 (2022) but didn't update all instances as I've noted here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104345#issuecomment-1312705977 (“the future is now!”).
Allow coercing functions whose signature differs in opaque types in their defining scope into a shared function pointer type
r? `@compiler-errors`
This accepts more code on stable. It is now possible to have match arms return a function item `foo` and a different function item `bar` in another, and that will constrain OpaqueTypeInDefiningScope to have the hidden type ConcreteType and make the type of the match arms a function pointer that matches the signature. So the following function will now compile, but on master it errors with a type mismatch on the second match arm
```rust
fn foo<T>(t: T) -> T {
t
}
fn bar<T>(t: T) -> T {
t
}
fn k() -> impl Sized {
fn bind<T, F: FnOnce(T) -> T>(_: T, f: F) -> F {
f
}
let x = match true {
true => {
let f = foo;
bind(k(), f)
}
false => bar::<()>,
};
todo!()
}
```
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116652
This is very similar to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123794, and with the same rationale:
> this is for consistency with `-Znext-solver`. the new solver does not have the concept of "non-defining use of opaque" right now and we would like to ideally keep it that way. Moving to `DefineOpaqueTypes::Yes` in more cases removes subtlety from the type system. Right now we have to be careful when relating `Opaque` with another type as the behavior changes depending on whether we later use the `Opaque` or its hidden type directly (even though they are equal), if that later use is with `DefineOpaqueTypes::No`*
self-contained linker: retry linking without `-fuse-ld=lld` on CCs that don't support it
For the self-contained linker, this PR applies [the strategy](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125330#issuecomment-2125119838) of retrying the linking step when the driver doesn't support `-fuse-ld=lld`, but with the option removed. This is the same strategy we already use of retrying when e.g. `-no-pie` is not supported.
Fixes#125330
r? `@petrochenkov`
I have no idea how we could add a test here, much like we don't have one for `-no-pie` or `-static-pie` -- let me know if you have ideas -- but I tested on a CentOS7 image:
```console
[root@d25b38376ede tmp]# ../build/host/stage1/bin/rustc helloworld.rs
WARN rustc_codegen_ssa:🔙:link The linker driver does not support `-fuse-ld=lld`. Retrying without it.
[root@d25b38376ede tmp]# readelf -p .comment helloworld
String dump of section '.comment':
[ 0] GCC: (GNU) 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-44)
[ 2d] rustc version 1.80.0-dev
```
I wasn't able to test with `cross` as the issue describes: I wasn't able to reproduce that behavior locally.
Expand `for_loops_over_fallibles` lint to lint on fallibles behind references.
Extends the scope of the (warn-by-default) lint `for_loops_over_fallibles` from just `for _ in x` where `x: Option<_>/Result<_, _>` to also cover `x: &(mut) Option<_>/Result<_>`
```rs
fn main() {
// Current lints
for _ in Some(42) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// New lints
for _ in &Some(42) {}
for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// Should not lint
for _ in Some(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter_mut() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter_mut() {}
}
```
<details><summary><code>cargo build</code> diff</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/old.out b/new.out
index 84215aa..ca195a7 100644
--- a/old.out
+++ b/new.out
`@@` -1,33 +1,93 `@@`
warning: for loop over an `Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:3:14
|
3 | for _ in Some(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(for_loops_over_fallibles)]` on by default
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
3 | while let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
3 | if let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
warning: for loop over a `Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:4:14
|
4 | for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
4 | while let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
4 | if let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
-warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 2 warnings
- Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.04s
+warning: for loop over a `&Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:7:14
+ |
+7 | for _ in &Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+7 | while let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+7 | if let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:8:14
+ |
+8 | for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+8 | while let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+8 | if let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:9:14
+ |
+9 | for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+9 | while let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+9 | if let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:10:14
+ |
+10 | for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+10 | while let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+10 | if let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 6 warnings
+ Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.02s
```
</details>
-----
Question:
* ~~Currently, the article `an` is used for `&Option`, and `&mut Option` in the lint diagnostic, since that's what `Option` uses. Is this okay or should it be changed? (likewise, `a` is used for `&Result` and `&mut Result`)~~ The article `a` is used for `&Option`, `&mut Option`, `&Result`, `&mut Result` and (as before) `Result`. Only `Option` uses `an` (as before).
`@rustbot` label +A-lint
Fix OutsideLoop's error suggestion: adding label `'block` for `if` block.
For OutsideLoop we should not suggest add `'block` label in `if` block, or we wiil get another err: block label not supported here.
fixes#123261
Add some tests for public-private dependencies.
This adds some tests to show more scenarios for the `exported_private_dependencies` lint. Several of these illustrate that the lint is not working as expected, and I have annotated those places with `FIXME`.
Note also that this includes some diamond dependency structures which compiletest doesn't exactly support. However, I don't think it should be a problem, it just results in the common dependency being built twice.
