Rename macro `SmartPointer` to `CoercePointee`
As per resolution #129104 we will rename the macro to better reflect the technical specification of the feature and clarify the communication.
- `SmartPointer` is renamed to `CoerceReferent`
- `#[pointee]` attribute is renamed to `#[referent]`
- `#![feature(derive_smart_pointer)]` gate is renamed to `#![feature(derive_coerce_referent)]`.
- Any mention of `SmartPointer` in the file names are renamed accordingly.
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@nikomatsakis` `@Darksonn`
Use `Enabled{Lang,Lib}Feature` instead of n-tuples
Instead of passing around e.g. `(gate_name, attr_span, stable_since)` 3-tuples for enabled lang features or `(gate_name, attr_span)` 2-tuples for enabled lib features, use `Enabled{Lang,Lib}Feature` structs with named fields.
Also did some minor code-golfing of involved iterator chains to hopefully make them easier to follow.
Follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132098#issuecomment-2434523431 cc `@RalfJung.`
Stabilize shorter-tail-lifetimes
Close#131445
Tracked by #123739
We found a test case `tests/ui/drop/drop_order.rs` that had not been covered by the change. The test fixture is fixed now with the correct expectation.
terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it)
Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](f25e5abea2/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl (L297-L301))), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature.
So really, our terminology is just a mess.
I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.
stabilize Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance APIs
Given that [RFC 3559](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3559-rust-has-provenance.html) has been accepted, t-lang has approved the concept of provenance to exist in the language. So I think it's time that we stabilize the strict provenance and exposed provenance APIs, and discuss provenance explicitly in the docs:
```rust
// core::ptr
pub const fn without_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub const fn dangling<T>() -> *const T;
pub const fn without_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
pub const fn dangling_mut<T>() -> *mut T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
impl<T: ?Sized> *const T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> *mut T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> NonNull<T> {
pub fn addr(self) -> NonZero<usize>;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(NonZero<usize>) -> NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
}
```
I also did a pass over the docs to adjust them, because this is no longer an "experiment". The `ptr` docs now discuss the concept of provenance in general, and then they go into the two families of APIs for dealing with provenance: Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance. I removed the discussion of how pointers also have an associated "address space" -- that is not actually tracked in the pointer value, it is tracked in the type, so IMO it just distracts from the core point of provenance. I also adjusted the docs for `with_exposed_provenance` to make it clear that we cannot guarantee much about this function, it's all best-effort.
There are two unstable lints associated with the strict_provenance feature gate; I moved them to a new [strict_provenance_lints](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130351) feature since I didn't want this PR to have an even bigger FCP. ;)
`@rust-lang/opsem` Would be great to get some feedback on the docs here. :)
Nominating for `@rust-lang/libs-api.`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95228.
[FCP comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130350#issuecomment-2395114536)
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
Compiler & its UI tests: Rename remaining occurrences of "object safe" to "dyn compatible"
Follow-up to #130826.
Part of #130852.
1. 1st commit: Fix stupid oversights. Should've been part of #130826.
2. 2nd commit: Rename the unstable feature `object_safe_for_dispatch` to `dyn_compatible_for_dispatch`. Might not be worth the churn, you decide.
3. 3rd commit: Apply the renaming to all UI tests (contents and paths).
Implement RFC3695 Allow boolean literals as cfg predicates
This PR implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695: allow boolean literals as cfg predicates, i.e. `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)`.
r? `@nnethercote` *(or anyone with parser knowledge)*
cc `@clubby789`
No longer mark RTN as incomplete
The RFC is accepted and the feature is basically fully implemented. This doesn't mean it's necesarily *ready* for stabiliation; there's probably some diagnostic improvements to be made, and as always, users uncover the most creative bugs.
But marking this feature as incomplete no longer serves any purpose, so let's fix that.
Begin experimental support for pin reborrowing
This commit adds basic support for reborrowing `Pin` types in argument position. At the moment it only supports reborrowing `Pin<&mut T>` as `Pin<&mut T>` by inserting a call to `Pin::as_mut()`, and only in argument position (not as the receiver in a method call).
This PR makes the following example compile:
```rust
#![feature(pin_ergonomics)]
fn foo(_: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
}
fn bar(mut x: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
foo(x);
foo(x);
}
```
Previously, you would have had to write `bar` as:
```rust
fn bar(mut x: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
foo(x.as_mut());
foo(x);
}
```
Tracking:
- #130494
r? `@compiler-errors`
This commit adds basic support for reborrowing `Pin` types in argument
position. At the moment it only supports reborrowing `Pin<&mut T>` as
`Pin<&mut T>` by inserting a call to `Pin::as_mut()`, and only in
argument position (not as the receiver in a method call).
Rescope temp lifetime in if-let into IfElse with migration lint
Tracking issue #124085
This PR shortens the temporary lifetime to cover only the pattern matching and consequent branch of a `if let`.
At the expression location, means that the lifetime is shortened from previously the deepest enclosing block or statement in Edition 2021. This warrants an Edition change.
Coming with the Edition change, this patch also implements an edition lint to warn about the change and a safe rewrite suggestion to preserve the 2021 semantics in most cases.
Related to #103108.
Related crater runs: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129466.
...and remove the `const_arg_path` feature gate as a result. It was only
a stopgap measure to fix the regression that the new lowering introduced
(which should now be fixed by this PR).
