Commit graph

7 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Ralf Jung
a0215d8e46 Re-do recursive const stability checks
Fundamentally, we have *three* disjoint categories of functions:
1. const-stable functions
2. private/unstable functions that are meant to be callable from const-stable functions
3. functions that can make use of unstable const features

This PR implements the following system:
- `#[rustc_const_stable]` puts functions in the first category. It may only be applied to `#[stable]` functions.
- `#[rustc_const_unstable]` by default puts functions in the third category. The new attribute `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` can be added to such a function to move it into the second category.
- `const fn` without a const stability marker are in the second category if they are still unstable. They automatically inherit the feature gate for regular calls, it can now also be used for const-calls.

Also, several holes in recursive const stability checking are being closed.
There's still one potential hole that is hard to avoid, which is when MIR
building automatically inserts calls to a particular function in stable
functions -- which happens in the panic machinery. Those need to *not* be
`rustc_const_unstable` (or manually get a `rustc_const_stable_indirect`) to be
sure they follow recursive const stability. But that's a fairly rare and special
case so IMO it's fine.

The net effect of this is that a `#[unstable]` or unmarked function can be
constified simply by marking it as `const fn`, and it will then be
const-callable from stable `const fn` and subject to recursive const stability
requirements. If it is publicly reachable (which implies it cannot be unmarked),
it will be const-unstable under the same feature gate. Only if the function ever
becomes `#[stable]` does it need a `#[rustc_const_unstable]` or
`#[rustc_const_stable]` marker to decide if this should also imply
const-stability.

Adding `#[rustc_const_unstable]` is only needed for (a) functions that need to
use unstable const lang features (including intrinsics), or (b) `#[stable]`
functions that are not yet intended to be const-stable. Adding
`#[rustc_const_stable]` is only needed for functions that are actually meant to
be directly callable from stable const code. `#[rustc_const_stable_indirect]` is
used to mark intrinsics as const-callable and for `#[rustc_const_unstable]`
functions that are actually called from other, exposed-on-stable `const fn`. No
other attributes are required.
2024-10-25 20:31:40 +02:00
Lukas Markeffsky
2fdeb3b8f4 rustdoc: inherit parent's stability where applicable 2024-09-24 20:18:36 +02:00
Guillaume Gomez
1b67035579 Update tests/rustdoc to new test syntax 2024-06-24 11:08:41 +02:00
Noah Lev
699d28f968 rustdoc: Show "const" for const-unstable if also overall unstable
If a const function is unstable overall (and thus, in all circumstances
I know of, also const-unstable), we should show the option to use it as
const. You need to enable a feature to use the function at all anyway.

If the function is stabilized without also being const-stabilized, then
we do not show the const keyword and instead show "const: unstable" in
the version info.
2024-05-26 21:06:02 -07:00
Noah Lev
fa7a3f9049 rustdoc: Elide const-unstable if also unstable overall
It's confusing because if a function is unstable overall, there's no
need to highlight the constness is also unstable. Technically, these
attributes (overall stability and const-stability) are separate, but in
practice, we don't even show the const-unstable's feature flag (it's
normally the same as the overall function).
2024-05-25 23:05:27 -07:00
Guillaume Gomez
a333572970 Update rustdoc tests for stability display 2023-11-29 12:10:16 +01:00
Albert Larsan
cf2dff2b1e
Move /src/test to /tests 2023-01-11 09:32:08 +00:00
Renamed from src/test/rustdoc/const-display.rs (Browse further)