Stabilize `raw_ref_op` (RFC 2582)
This stabilizes the syntax `&raw const $expr` and `&raw mut $expr`. It has existed unstably for ~4 years now, and has been exposed on stable via the `addr_of` and `addr_of_mut` macros since Rust 1.51 (released more than 3 years ago). I think it has become clear that these operations are here to stay. So it is about time we give them proper primitive syntax. This has two advantages over the macro:
- Being macros, `addr_of`/`addr_of_mut` could in theory do arbitrary magic with the expression on which they work. The only "magic" they actually do is using the argument as a place expression rather than as a value expression. Place expressions are already a subtle topic and poorly understood by many programmers; having this hidden behind a macro using unstable language features makes this even worse. Conversely, people do have an idea of what happens below `&`/`&mut`, so we can make the subtle topic a lot more approachable by connecting to existing intuition.
- The name `addr_of` is quite unfortunate from today's perspective, given that we have accepted provenance as a reality, which means that a pointer is *not* just an address. Strict provenance has a method, `addr`, which extracts the address of a pointer; using the term `addr` in two different ways is quite unfortunate. That's why this PR soft-deprecates `addr_of` -- we will wait a long time before actually showing any warning here, but we should start telling people that the "addr" part of this name is somewhat misleading, and `&raw` avoids that potential confusion.
In summary, this syntax improves developers' ability to conceptualize the operational semantics of Rust, while making a fundamental operation frequently used in unsafe code feel properly built in.
Possible questions to consider, based on the RFC and [this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64490#issuecomment-1163802912) great summary by `@CAD97:`
- Some questions are entirely about the semantics. The semantics are the same as with the macros so I don't think this should have any impact on this syntax PR. Still, for completeness' sake:
- Should `&raw const *mut_ref` give a read-only pointer?
- Tracked at: https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/257
- I think ideally the answer is "no". Stacked Borrows says that pointer is read-only, but Tree Borrows says it is mutable.
- What exactly does `&raw const (*ptr).field` require? Answered in [the reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html): the arithmetic to compute the field offset follows the rules of `ptr::offset`, making it UB if it goes out-of-bounds. Making this a safe operation (using `wrapping_offset` rules) is considered too much of a loss for alias analysis.
- Choose a different syntax? I don't want to re-litigate the RFC. The only credible alternative that has been proposed is `&raw $place` instead of `&raw const $place`, which (IIUC) could be achieved by making `raw` a contextual keyword in a new edition. The type is named `*const T`, so the explicit `const` is consistent in that regard. `&raw expr` lacks the explicit indication of immutability. However, `&raw const expr` is quite a but longer than `addr_of!(expr)`.
- Shouldn't we have a completely new, better raw pointer type instead? Yes we all want to see that happen -- but I don't think we should block stabilization on that, given that such a nicer type is not on the horizon currently and given the issues with `addr_of!` mentioned above. (If we keep the `&raw $place` syntax free for this, we could use it in the future for that new type.)
- What about the lint the RFC talked about? It hasn't been implemented yet. Given that the problematic code is UB with or without this stabilization, I don't think the lack of the lint should block stabilization.
- I created an issue to track adding it: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127724
- Other points from the "future possibilites of the RFC
- "Syntactic sugar" extension: this has not been implemented. I'd argue this is too confusing, we should stick to what the RFC suggested and if we want to do anything about such expressions, add the lint.
- Encouraging / requiring `&raw` in situations where references are often/definitely incorrect: this has been / is being implemented. On packed fields this already is a hard error, and for `static mut` a lint suggesting raw pointers is being rolled out.
- Lowering of casts: this has been implemented. (It's also an invisible implementation detail.)
- `offsetof` woes: we now have native `offset_of` so this is not relevant any more.
To be done before landing:
- [x] Suppress `unused_parens` lint around `&raw {const|mut}` expressions
- See bottom of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127679#issuecomment-2264073752 for rationale
- Implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128782
- [ ] Update the Reference.
- https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1567
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64490
cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/opsem`
try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: test-various
try-job: dist-various-1
try-job: armhf-gnu
try-job: aarch64-apple
`pulldown-cmark` has slightly different behavior between 0.11.0 and
0.11.2, causing one of the `unportable-markdown` tests to no longer emit
an error. Per [1], remove the error annotation and bless the output.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128722#issuecomment-2295522292
Move ZST ABI handling to `rustc_target`
Currently, target specific handling of ZST function call ABI (specifically passing them indirectly instead of ignoring them) is handled in `rustc_ty_utils`, whereas all other target specific function call ABI handling is located in `rustc_target`. This PR moves the ZST handling to `rustc_target` so that all the target-specific function call ABI handling is in one place. In the process of doing so, this PR fixes#125850 by ensuring that ZST arguments are always correctly ignored in the x86-64 `"sysv64"` ABI; any code which would be affected by this fix would have ICEd before this PR. Tests are also added using `#[rustc_abi(debug)]` to ensure this behaviour does not regress.
Fixes#125850
Recent versions of wasm-tools are now Apache-2.0 or MIT or Apache-2.0
with the LLVM exception, rather than strictly Apache-2.0 with the LLVM
exception. The only component with the exception has moved to a new
dependency `wasi-preview1-component-adapter-provider`.
With the new resolver, a few dependencies get brought in twice with
different licenses. For example, all dependencies from `wasm-tools`
gained Apache-2.0 and MIT options, and with the v2 resolver we were
using one version from before and one version from after this change.
This made tidy's license check difficult.
Update some minimum versions to remove duplicate dependencies and smooth
out license checking.
Pinning the resolver to v1 was done in 5abff3753a ("Explicit set
workspace.resolver ...") in order to suppress warnings. Since there is
no specific reason not to use the new resolver and since it fixes
issues, change to `resolver = "2"` everywhere except library and
submodules.
Modifies `BikeshedIntrinsicFrom` to forbid lifetime extensions on
references. This static check can be opted out of with the
`Assume::lifetimes` flag.
Fixes#129097
Promote Mac Catalyst targets to Tier 2, and ship with rustup
Promote the Mac Catalyst targets `x86_64-apple-ios-macabi` and `aarch64-apple-ios-macabi` to Tier 2, as per [the MCP](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/761) (see that for motivation and details).
These targets are now also distributed with rustup, although without the sanitizer runtime, as that currently has trouble building, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129069.
Add epollerr support
Fixes#3816
For socketpair, if the peer fd is closed while having data in its read buffer, ``EPOLLER`` will be thrown.
This is still WIP because I am currently finding a way to check if peer fd still has something in its ``readbuf`` when it is closed and add the ``EPOLLER`` flag In ``get_epoll_ready_events``.
Disable `dump-ice-to-disk` for i686-mingw (again)
To avoid blocking full CI or `i686-mingw` try jobs (failed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127679#issuecomment-2295184771).
At least we now have some context for why the assertion failed.
Anyone with r+ can approve this.
Remove JohnTitor from review rotation
This removes `@JohnTitor` from the review rotation. I haven't seen any comments from them in this repository since February, and PRs that get assigned to them tend to sit a few weeks until someone notices. I see that they are still semi-active with libc, but I haven't been able to reach them on Zulip. If `@JohnTitor` wants to get back on the rotation in the future, they are welcome (I don't want to pressure them, their support in the past was much appreciated).
