add `naked_functions_rustic_abi` feature gate
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138997
Because the details of the rust abi are unstable, and a naked function must match its stated ABI, this feature gate keeps naked functions with a rustic abi ("Rust", "rust-cold", "rust-call" and "rust-intrinsic") unstable.
r? ````@traviscross````
Remove support for `extern "rust-intrinsic"` blocks
Part of rust-lang/rust#132735
Looked manageable and there didn't appear to have been progress in the last two weeks,
so decided to give it a try.
Experimental feature gate for `super let`
This adds an experimental feature gate, `#![feature(super_let)]`, for the `super let` experiment.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076
Liaison: ``@nikomatsakis``
## Description
There's a rough (inaccurate) description here: https://blog.m-ou.se/super-let/
In short, `super let` allows you to define something that lives long enough to be borrowed by the tail expression of the block. For example:
```rust
let a = {
super let b = temp();
&b
};
```
Here, `b` is extended to live as long as `a`, similar to how in `let a = &temp();`, the temporary will be extended to live as long as `a`.
## Properties
During the temporary lifetimes work we did last year, we explored the properties of "super let" and concluded that the fundamental property should be that these two are always equivalent in any context:
1. `& $expr`
2. `{ super let a = & $expr; a }`
And, additionally, that these are equivalent in any context when `$expr` is a temporary (aka rvalue):
1. `& $expr`
2. `{ super let a = $expr; & a }`
This makes it possible to give a name to a temporary without affecting how temporary lifetimes work, such that a macro can transparently use a block in its expansion, without that having any effect on the outside.
## Implementing pin!() correctly
With `super let`, we can properly implement the `pin!()` macro without hacks: ✨
```rust
pub macro pin($value:expr $(,)?) {
{
super let mut pinned = $value;
unsafe { $crate::pin::Pin::new_unchecked(&mut pinned) }
}
}
```
This is important, as there is currently no way to express it without hacks in Rust 2021 and before (see [hacky definition](2a06022951/library/core/src/pin.rs (L1947))), and no way to express it at all in Rust 2024 (see [issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138718)).
## Fixing format_args!()
This will also allow us to express `format_args!()` in a way where one can assign the result to a variable, fixing a [long standing issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92698):
```rust
let f = format_args!("Hello {name}!"); // error today, but accepted in the future! (after separate FCP)
```
## Experiment
The precise definition of `super let`, what happens for `super let x;` (without initializer), and whether to accept `super let _ = _ else { .. }` are still open questions, to be answered by the experiment.
Furthermore, once we have a more complete understanding of the feature, we might be able to come up with a better syntax. (Which could be just a different keywords, or an entirely different way of naming temporaries that doesn't involve a block and a (super) let statement.)
Add the new `amx` target features and the `movrs` target feature
Adds 5 new `amx` target features included in LLVM20. These are guarded under `x86_amx_intrinsics` (#126622)
- `amx-avx512`
- `amx-fp8`
- `amx-movrs`
- `amx-tf32`
- `amx-transpose`
Adds the `movrs` target feature (from #137976).
`@rustbot` label O-x86_64 O-x86_32 T-compiler A-target-feature
r? `@Amanieu`
remove `feature(inline_const_pat)`
Summarizing https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/144729-t-types/topic/remove.20feature.28inline_const_pat.29.20and.20shared.20borrowck.
With https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/129 we will start to borrowck items together with their typeck parent. This is necessary to correctly support opaque types, blocking the new solver and TAIT/ATPIT stabilization with the old one. This means that we cannot really support `inline_const_pat` as they are implemented right now:
- we want to typeck inline consts together with their parent body to allow inference to flow both ways and to allow the const to refer to local regions of its parent.This means we also need to borrowck the inline const together with its parent as that's necessary to properly support opaque types
- we want the inline const pattern to participate in exhaustiveness checking
- to participate in exhaustiveness checking we need to evaluate it, which requires borrowck, which now relies on borrowck of the typeck root, which ends up checking exhaustiveness again. **This is a query cycle**.
There are 4 possible ways to handle this:
- stop typechecking inline const patterns together with their parent
- causes inline const patterns to be different than inline const exprs
- prevents bidirectional inference, we need to either fail to compile `if let const { 1 } = 1u32` or `if let const { 1u32 } = 1`
- region inference for inline consts will be harder, it feels non-trivial to support inline consts referencing local regions from the parent fn
- inline consts no longer participate in exhaustiveness checking. Treat them like `pat if pat == const { .. }` instead. We then only evaluate them after borrowck
- difference between `const { 1 }` and `const FOO: usize = 1; match x { FOO => () }`. This is confusing
- do they carry their weight if they are now just equivalent to using an if-guard
- delay exhaustiveness checking until after borrowck
- should be possible in theory, but is a quite involved change and may have some unexpected challenges
- remove this feature for now
I believe we should either delay exhaustiveness checking or remove the feature entirely. As moving exhaustiveness checking to after borrow checking is quite complex I think the right course of action is to fully remove the feature for now and to add it again once/if we've got that implementation figured out.
`const { .. }`-expressions remain stable. These seem to have been the main motivation for https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/2920.
r? types
cc `@rust-lang/types` `@rust-lang/lang` #76001
add `naked_functions_target_feature` unstable feature
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138568
tagging https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134213https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
This PR puts `#[target_feature(/* ... */)]` on `#[naked]` functions behind its own feature gate, so that naked functions can be stabilized. It turns out that supporting `target_feature` on naked functions is tricky on some targets, so we're splitting it out to not block stabilization of naked functions themselves. See the tracking issue for more information and workarounds.
Note that at the time of writing, the `target_features` attribute is ignored when generating code for naked functions.
r? ``@Amanieu``
Move `yield` expressions behind their own feature gate
In order to make progress with the `iter!` macro (e.g. in #137725), we need `yield` expressions to be available without the `coroutines` feature. This PR moves `yield` to be guarded by the `yield_expr` feature so that we can stabilize that independently (or at least, concurrently with the `iter_macro` feature). Note that once `yield` is stable, it will still be an error to use `yield` expressions outside something like a generator or coroutine, and these features remain unstable.
r? `@oli-obk`
Add timestamp to unstable feature usage metrics
part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129485
with this we should be able to temporarily enable metrics on docs.rs to gather a nice test dataset for the initial PoC dashboard
r? ```@estebank```
Support raw-dylib link kind on ELF
raw-dylib is a link kind that allows rustc to link against a library without having any library files present.
This currently only exists on Windows. rustc will take all the symbols from raw-dylib link blocks and put them in an import library, where they can then be resolved by the linker.
While import libraries don't exist on ELF, it would still be convenient to have this same functionality. Not having the libraries present at build-time can be convenient for several reasons, especially cross-compilation. With raw-dylib, code linking against a library can be cross-compiled without needing to have these libraries available on the build machine. If the libc crate makes use of this, it would allow cross-compilation without having any libc available on the build machine. This is not yet possible with this implementation, at least against libc's like glibc that use symbol versioning. The raw-dylib kind could be extended with support for symbol versioning in the future.
This implementation is very experimental and I have not tested it very well. I have tested it for a toy example and the lz4-sys crate, where it was able to successfully link a binary despite not having a corresponding library at build-time.
I was inspired by Björn's comments in https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/bundle-zig-cc-in-rustup-by-default/22096/27
Tracking issue: #135694
r? bjorn3
try-job: aarch64-apple
try-job: x86_64-msvc-1
try-job: x86_64-msvc-2
try-job: test-various
Implement `#[cfg]` in `where` clauses
This PR implements #115590, which supports `#[cfg]` attributes in `where` clauses.
The biggest change is, that it adds `AttrsVec` and `NodeId` to the `ast::WherePredicate` and `HirId` to the `hir::WherePredicate`.
raw-dylib is a link kind that allows rustc to link against a library
without having any library files present.
This currently only exists on Windows. rustc will take all the symbols
from raw-dylib link blocks and put them in an import library, where they
can then be resolved by the linker.
While import libraries don't exist on ELF, it would still be convenient
to have this same functionality. Not having the libraries present at
build-time can be convenient for several reasons, especially
cross-compilation. With raw-dylib, code linking against a library can be
cross-compiled without needing to have these libraries available on the
build machine. If the libc crate makes use of this, it would allow
cross-compilation without having any libc available on the build
machine. This is not yet possible with this implementation, at least
against libc's like glibc that use symbol versioning.
The raw-dylib kind could be extended with support for symbol versioning
in the future.
This implementation is very experimental and I have not tested it very
well. I have tested it for a toy example and the lz4-sys crate, where it
was able to successfully link a binary despite not having a
corresponding library at build-time.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #134999 (Add cygwin target.)
- #136559 (Resolve named regions when reporting type test failures in NLL)
- #136660 (Use a trait to enforce field validity for union fields + `unsafe` fields + `unsafe<>` binder types)
- #136858 (Parallel-compiler-related cleanup)
- #136881 (cg_llvm: Reduce visibility of all functions in the llvm module)
- #136888 (Always perform discr read for never pattern in EUV)
- #136948 (Split out the `extern_system_varargs` feature)
- #136949 (Fix import in bench for wasm)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Split out the `extern_system_varargs` feature
After the stabilization PR was opened, `extern "system"` functions were added to `extended_varargs_abi_support`. This has a number of questions regarding it that were not discussed and were somewhat surprising. It deserves to be considered as its own feature, separate from `extended_varargs_abi_support`.
Tracking issue:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136946
After the stabilization PR was opened, `extern "system"` functions were
added to `extended_varargs_abi_support`. This has a number of questions
regarding it that were not discussed and were somewhat surprising.
It deserves to be considered as its own feature, separate from
`extended_varargs_abi_support`.
Stabilize target_feature_11
# Stabilization report
This is an updated version of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116114, which is itself a redo of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99767. Most of this commit and report were copied from those PRs. Thanks ```@LeSeulArtichaut``` and ```@calebzulawski!```
## Summary
Allows for safe functions to be marked with `#[target_feature]` attributes.
Functions marked with `#[target_feature]` are generally considered as unsafe functions: they are unsafe to call, cannot *generally* be assigned to safe function pointers, and don't implement the `Fn*` traits.
However, calling them from other `#[target_feature]` functions with a superset of features is safe.
```rust
// Demonstration function
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn avx2() {}
fn foo() {
// Calling `avx2` here is unsafe, as we must ensure
// that AVX is available first.
unsafe {
avx2();
}
}
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn bar() {
// Calling `avx2` here is safe.
avx2();
}
```
Moreover, once https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135504 is merged, they can be converted to safe function pointers in a context in which calling them is safe:
```rust
// Demonstration function
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn avx2() {}
fn foo() -> fn() {
// Converting `avx2` to fn() is a compilation error here.
avx2
}
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn bar() -> fn() {
// `avx2` coerces to fn() here
avx2
}
```
See the section "Closures" below for justification of this behaviour.
## Test cases
Tests for this feature can be found in [`tests/ui/target_feature/`](f6cb952dc1/tests/ui/target-feature).
## Edge cases
### Closures
* [target-feature 1.1: should closures inherit target-feature annotations? #73631](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73631)
Closures defined inside functions marked with #[target_feature] inherit the target features of their parent function. They can still be assigned to safe function pointers and implement the appropriate `Fn*` traits.
```rust
#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
fn qux() {
let my_closure = || avx2(); // this call to `avx2` is safe
let f: fn() = my_closure;
}
```
This means that in order to call a function with #[target_feature], you must guarantee that the target-feature is available while the function, any closures defined inside it, as well as any safe function pointers obtained from target-feature functions inside it, execute.
This is usually ensured because target features are assumed to never disappear, and:
- on any unsafe call to a `#[target_feature]` function, presence of the target feature is guaranteed by the programmer through the safety requirements of the unsafe call.
- on any safe call, this is guaranteed recursively by the caller.
If you work in an environment where target features can be disabled, it is your responsibility to ensure that no code inside a target feature function (including inside a closure) runs after this (until the feature is enabled again).
**Note:** this has an effect on existing code, as nowadays closures do not inherit features from the enclosing function, and thus this strengthens a safety requirement. It was originally proposed in #73631 to solve this by adding a new type of UB: “taking a target feature away from your process after having run code that uses that target feature is UB” .
This was motivated by userspace code already assuming in a few places that CPU features never disappear from a program during execution (see i.e. 2e29bdf908/crates/std_detect/src/detect/arch/x86.rs); however, concerns were raised in the context of the Linux kernel; thus, we propose to relax that requirement to "causing the set of usable features to be reduced is unsafe; when doing so, the programmer is required to ensure that no closures or safe fn pointers that use removed features are still in scope".
* [Fix #[inline(always)] on closures with target feature 1.1 #111836](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111836)
Closures accept `#[inline(always)]`, even within functions marked with `#[target_feature]`. Since these attributes conflict, `#[inline(always)]` wins out to maintain compatibility.
### ABI concerns
* [The extern "C" ABI of SIMD vector types depends on target features #116558](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116558)
The ABI of some types can change when compiling a function with different target features. This could have introduced unsoundness with target_feature_11, but recent fixes (#133102, #132173) either make those situations invalid or make the ABI no longer dependent on features. Thus, those issues should no longer occur.
### Special functions
The `#[target_feature]` attribute is forbidden from a variety of special functions, such as main, current and future lang items (e.g. `#[start]`, `#[panic_handler]`), safe default trait implementations and safe trait methods.
This was not disallowed at the time of the first stabilization PR for target_features_11, and resulted in the following issues/PRs:
* [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on `main` #108645](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108645)
* [`#[target_feature]` is allowed on default implementations #108646](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108646)
* [#[target_feature] is allowed on #[panic_handler] with target_feature 1.1 #109411](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/109411)
* [Prevent using `#[target_feature]` on lang item functions #115910](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115910)
## Documentation
* Reference: [Document the `target_feature_11` feature reference#1181](https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1181)
---
cc tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69098
cc ```@workingjubilee```
cc ```@RalfJung```
r? ```@rust-lang/lang```
Prevent generic pattern types from being used in libstd
Pattern types should follow the same rules that patterns follow. So a pattern type range must not wrap and not be empty. While we reject such invalid ranges at layout computation time, that only happens during monomorphization in the case of const generics. This is the exact same issue as other const generic math has, and since there's no solution there yet, I put these pattern types behind a separate incomplete feature.
These are not necessary for the pattern types MVP (replacing the layout range attributes in libcore and rustc).
cc #136574 (new tracking issue for the `generic_pattern_types` feature gate)
r? ``@lcnr``
cc ``@scottmcm`` ``@joshtriplett``
#[contracts::requires(...)] + #[contracts::ensures(...)]
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128044
Updated contract support: attribute syntax for preconditions and postconditions, implemented via a series of desugarings that culminates in:
1. a compile-time flag (`-Z contract-checks`) that, similar to `-Z ub-checks`, attempts to ensure that the decision of enabling/disabling contract checks is delayed until the end user program is compiled,
2. invocations of lang-items that handle invoking the precondition, building a checker for the post-condition, and invoking that post-condition checker at the return sites for the function, and
3. intrinsics for the actual evaluation of pre- and post-condition predicates that third-party verification tools can intercept and reinterpret for their own purposes (e.g. creating shims of behavior that abstract away the function body and replace it solely with the pre- and post-conditions).
Known issues:
* My original intent, as described in the MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/759) was to have a rustc-prefixed attribute namespace (like rustc_contracts::requires). But I could not get things working when I tried to do rewriting via a rustc-prefixed builtin attribute-macro. So for now it is called `contracts::requires`.
* Our attribute macro machinery does not provide direct support for attribute arguments that are parsed like rust expressions. I spent some time trying to add that (e.g. something that would parse the attribute arguments as an AST while treating the remainder of the items as a token-tree), but its too big a lift for me to undertake. So instead I hacked in something approximating that goal, by semi-trivially desugaring the token-tree attribute contents into internal AST constucts. This may be too fragile for the long-term.
* (In particular, it *definitely* breaks when you try to add a contract to a function like this: `fn foo1(x: i32) -> S<{ 23 }> { ... }`, because its token-tree based search for where to inject the internal AST constructs cannot immediately see that the `{ 23 }` is within a generics list. I think we can live for this for the short-term, i.e. land the work, and continue working on it while in parallel adding a new attribute variant that takes a token-tree attribute alongside an AST annotation, which would completely resolve the issue here.)
* the *intent* of `-Z contract-checks` is that it behaves like `-Z ub-checks`, in that we do not prematurely commit to including or excluding the contract evaluation in upstream crates (most notably, `core` and `std`). But the current test suite does not actually *check* that this is the case. Ideally the test suite would be extended with a multi-crate test that explores the matrix of enabling/disabling contracts on both the upstream lib and final ("leaf") bin crates.
