We need a different attribute than `rustc_align` because unstable attributes are
tied to their feature (we can't have two unstable features use the same
unstable attribute). Otherwise this uses all of the same infrastructure
as `#[rustc_align]`.
Allow `inline(always)` with a target feature behind a unstable feature `target_feature_inline_always`.
Rather than adding the inline always attribute to the function definition, we add it to the callsite. We can then check that the target features match and that the call would be safe to inline. If the function isn't inlined due to a mismatch, we emit a warning informing the user that the function can't be inlined due to the target feature mismatch.
See tracking issue rust-lang/rust#145574
Experiment: Reborrow trait
Tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#145612
Starting off really small here: just introduce the unstable feature and the feature gate, and one of the two traits that the Reborrow experiment deals with.
### Cliff-notes explanation
The `Reborrow` trait is conceptually a close cousin of `Copy` with the exception that it disables the source (`self`) for the lifetime of the target / result of the reborrow action. It can be viewed as a method of `fn reborrow(self: Self<'a>) -> Self<'a>` with the compiler adding tracking of the resulting `Self<'a>` (or any value derived from it that retains the `'a` lifetime) to keep the `self` disabled for reads and writes.
No method is planned to be surfaced to the user, however, as reborrowing cannot be seen in code (except for method calls [`a.foo()` reborrows `a`] and explicit reborrows [`&*a`]) and thus triggering user-code in it could be viewed as "spooky action at a distance". Furthermore, the added compiler tracking cannot be seen on the method itself, violating the Golden Rule. Note that the userland "reborrow" method is not True Reborrowing, but rather a form of a "Fancy Deref":
```rust
fn reborrow(&'short self: Self<'long>) -> Self<'short>;
```
The lifetime shortening is the issue here: a reborrowed `Self` or any value derived from it is bound to the method that called `reborrow`, since `&'short` is effectively a local variable. True Reborrowing does not shorten the lifetime of the result.
To avoid having to introduce new kinds of references, new kinds of lifetime annotations, or a blessed trait method, no method will be introduced at all. Instead, the `Reborrow` trait is intended to be a derived trait that effectively reborrows each field individually; `Copy` fields end up just copying, while fields that themselves `Reborrow` get disabled in the source, usually leading to the source itself being disabled (some differences may appear with structs that contain multiple reborrowable fields). The goal of the experiment is to determine how the actual implementation here will shape out, and what the "bottom case" for the recursive / deriving `Reborrow` is.
`Reborrow` has a friend trait, `CoerceShared`, which is equivalent to a `&'a mut T -> &'a T` conversion. This is needed as a different trait and different operation due to the different semantics it enforces on the source: a `CoerceShared` operation only disables the source for writes / exclusive access for the lifetime of the result. That trait is not yet introduced in this PR, though there is no particular reason why it could not be introduced.
take attr style into account in diagnostics
when the original attribute was specified as an inner attribute, the suggestion will now match that attribute style
Remove the `#[no_sanitize]` attribute in favor of `#[sanitize(xyz = "on|off")]`
This came up during the sanitizer stabilization (rust-lang/rust#123617). Instead of a `#[no_sanitize(xyz)]` attribute, we would like to have a `#[sanitize(xyz = "on|off")]` attribute, which is more powerful and allows to be extended in the future (instead
of just focusing on turning sanitizers off). The implementation is done according to what was [discussed on Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/343119-project-exploit-mitigations/topic/Stabilize.20the.20.60no_sanitize.60.20attribute/with/495377292)).
The new attribute also works on modules, traits and impl items and thus enables usage as the following:
```rust
#[sanitize(address = "off")]
mod foo {
fn unsanitized(..) {}
#[sanitize(address = "on")]
fn sanitized(..) {}
}
trait MyTrait {
#[sanitize(address = "off")]
fn unsanitized_default(..) {}
}
#[sanitize(thread = "off")]
impl MyTrait for () {
...
}
```
r? ```@rcvalle```
This removes the #[no_sanitize] attribute, which was behind an unstable
feature named no_sanitize. Instead, we introduce the sanitize attribute
which is more powerful and allows to be extended in the future (instead
of just focusing on turning sanitizers off).
This also makes sanitize(kernel_address = ..) attribute work with
-Zsanitize=address
To do it the same as how clang disables address sanitizer, we now
disable ASAN on sanitize(kernel_address = "off") and KASAN on
sanitize(address = "off").
The same was added to clang in https://reviews.llvm.org/D44981.
This change implements the #[sanitize(..)] attribute, which opts to
replace the currently unstable #[no_sanitize]. Essentially the new
attribute works similar as #[no_sanitize], just with more flexible
options regarding where it is applied. E.g. it is possible to turn
a certain sanitizer either on or off:
`#[sanitize(address = "on|off")]`
This attribute now also applies to more places, e.g. it is possible
to turn off a sanitizer for an entire module or impl block:
```rust
\#[sanitize(address = "off")]
mod foo {
fn unsanitized(..) {}
#[sanitize(address = "on")]
fn sanitized(..) {}
}
\#[sanitize(thread = "off")]
impl MyTrait for () {
...
}
```
This attribute is enabled behind the unstable `sanitize` feature.
Implement declarative (`macro_rules!`) derive macros (RFC 3698)
This is a draft for review, and should not be merged yet.
This is layered atop https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145153 , and has
only two additional commits atop that. The first handles parsing and provides a
test for various parse errors. The second implements expansion and handles
application.
This implements RFC 3698, "Declarative (`macro_rules!`) derive macros".
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/143549
This has one remaining issue, which I could use some help debugging: in
`tests/ui/macros/macro-rules-derive-error.rs`, the diagnostics for
`derive(fn_only)` (for a `fn_only` with no `derive` rules) and
`derive(ForwardReferencedDerive)` both get emitted twice, as a duplicate
diagnostic.
From what I can tell via adding some debugging code,
`unresolved_macro_suggestions` is getting called twice from
`finalize_macro_resolutions` for each of them, because
`self.single_segment_macro_resolutions` has two entries for the macro, with two
different `parent_scope` values. I'm not clear on why that happened; it doesn't
happen with the equivalent code using attrs.
I'd welcome any suggestions for fixing this.
Revert "Partially outline code inside the panic! macro".
This reverts https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115670
Without any tests/benchmarks that show some improvement, it's hard to know whether the change had any positive effect. (And if it did, whether that effect is still achieved today.)
Without any tests/benchmarks that show some improvement, it's hard to
know whether the change had any positive effect at all. (And if it did,
whether that effect is still achieved today.)
Modify `AttributeTemplate` to support list of alternatives for list and name value attribute styles.
Suggestions now provide more correct suggested code:
```
error[E0805]: malformed `used` attribute input
--> $DIR/used_with_multi_args.rs:3:1
|
LL | #[used(compiler, linker)]
| ^^^^^^------------------^
| |
| expected a single argument here
|
help: try changing it to one of the following valid forms of the attribute
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used(compiler)]
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used(linker)]
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used]
|
```
instead of the prior "masking" of the lack of this feature by suggesting pipe-separated lists:
```
error[E0805]: malformed `used` attribute input
--> $DIR/used_with_multi_args.rs:3:1
|
LL | #[used(compiler, linker)]
| ^^^^^^------------------^
| |
| expected a single argument here
|
help: try changing it to one of the following valid forms of the attribute
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used(compiler|linker)]
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used]
|
```
Disabling loading of pretty printers in the debugger itself is more
reliable. Before this commit the .gdb_debug_scripts section couldn't be
included in dylibs or rlibs as otherwise there is no way to disable the
section anymore without recompiling the entire standard library.
From `#[align]` -> `#[rustc_align]`. Attributes starting with `rustc`
are always perma-unstable and feature-gated by `feature(rustc_attrs)`.
See regression RUST-143834.
For the underlying problem where even introducing new feature-gated
unstable built-in attributes can break user code such as
```rs
macro_rules! align {
() => {
/* .. */
};
}
pub(crate) use align; // `use` here becomes ambiguous
```
refer to RUST-134963.
Since the `#[align]` attribute is still feature-gated by
`feature(fn_align)`, we can rename it as a mitigation. Note that
`#[rustc_align]` will obviously mean that current unstable user code
using `feature(fn_aling)` will need additionally `feature(rustc_attrs)`,
but this is a short-term mitigation to buy time, and is expected to be
changed to a better name with less collision potential.
See
<https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bweekly.5D.202025-07-17/near/529290371>
where mitigation options were considered.
Remove let_chains unstable feature
Per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53667#issuecomment-3016742982 (but then I also noticed rust-lang/rust#140722)
This replaces the feature gate with a parser error that says let chains require 2024.
A lot of tests were using the unstable feature. I either added edition:2024 to the test or split out the parts that require 2024.
New const traits syntax
This PR only affects the AST and doesn't actually change anything semantically.
All occurrences of `~const` outside of libcore have been replaced by `[const]`. Within libcore we have to wait for rustfmt to be bumped in the bootstrap compiler. This will happen "automatically" (when rustfmt is run) during the bootstrap bump, as rustfmt converts `~const` into `[const]`. After this we can remove the `~const` support from the parser
Caveat discovered during impl: there is no legacy bare trait object recovery for `[const] Trait` as that snippet in type position goes down the slice /array parsing code and will error
r? ``@fee1-dead``
cc ``@nikomatsakis`` ``@traviscross`` ``@compiler-errors``
add #![rustc_no_implicit_bounds]
Follow-up from rust-lang/rust#137944.
Adds a new `rustc_attrs` attribute that stops rustc from adding any default bounds. Useful for tests where default bounds just add noise and make debugging harder.
After reviewing all tests with `?Sized`, these tests seem like they could probably benefit from `#![rustc_no_implicit_bounds]`.
- Skipping most of `tests/ui/unsized` as these seem to want to test `?Sized`
- Skipping tests that used `Box<T>` because it's still bound by `T: MetaSized`
- Skipping parsing or other tests that cared about `?Sized` syntactically
- Skipping tests for `derive(CoercePointee)` because this appears to check that the pointee type is relaxed with `?Sized` explicitly
r? `@lcnr`
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- rust-lang/rust#142146 (Withdraw the claim `extern "C-cmse-nonsecure-*"` always matches `extern "C"`)
- rust-lang/rust#142200 (`tests/ui`: A New Order [8/N])
- rust-lang/rust#142724 (Add runtime check to avoid overwrite arg in `Diag`)
- rust-lang/rust#142809 (Add PrintTAFn flag for targeted type analysis printing)
- rust-lang/rust#142976 (Check CoerceUnsized impl validity before coercing)
- rust-lang/rust#142992 (Convert some ABI tests to use `extern "rust-invalid"`)
- rust-lang/rust#143000 (Make `Sub`, `Mul`, `Div` and `Rem` `const_traits`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add `#[loop_match]` for improved DFA codegen
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132306
project goal: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-project-goals/issues/258
This PR adds the `#[loop_match]` attribute, which aims to improve code generation for state machines. For some (very exciting) benchmarks, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-project-goals/issues/258#issuecomment-2732965199
Currently, a very restricted syntax pattern is accepted. We'd like to get feedback and merge this now before we go too far in a direction that others have concerns with.
## current state
We accept code that looks like this
```rust
#[loop_match]
loop {
state = 'blk: {
match state {
State::A => {
#[const_continue]
break 'blk State::B
}
State::B => { /* ... */ }
/* ... */
}
}
}
```
- a loop should have the same semantics with and without `#[loop_match]`: normal `continue` and `break` continue to work
- `#[const_continue]` is only allowed in loops annotated with `#[loop_match]`
- the loop body needs to have this particular shape (a single assignment to the match scrutinee, with the body a labelled block containing just a match)
## future work
- perform const evaluation on the `break` value
- support more state/scrutinee types
## maybe future work
- allow `continue 'label value` syntax, which `#[const_continue]` could then use.
- allow the match to be on an arbitrary expression (e.g. `State::Initial`)
- attempt to also optimize `break`/`continue` expressions that are not marked with `#[const_continue]`
r? ``@traviscross``
