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.
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.)
Implement `#[derive(From)]`
Implements the `#[derive(From)]` feature ([tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/144889), [RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3809)).
It allows deriving the `From` impl on structs and tuple structs with exactly one field. Some implementation notes:
- I wasn't exactly sure which spans to use in the derive generating code, so I just used `span` everywhere. I don't know if it's the Right Thing To Do. In particular the errors when `#[derive(From)]` is used on a struct with an unsized field are weirdly duplicated.
- I had to solve an import stability problem, where if I just added the unstable `macro From` to `core::convert`, previously working code like `use std::convert::From` would suddenly require an unstable feature gate, because rustc would think that you're trying to import the unstable macro. `@petrochenkov` suggested that I add the macro the the core prelude instead. This has worked well, although it only works in edition 2021+. Not sure if I botched the prelude somehow and it should live elsewhere (?).
- I had to add `Ty::AstTy`, because the `from` function receives an argument with the type of the single field, and the existing variants of the `Ty` enum couldn't represent an arbitrary type.
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.)
Improve formatting of doc code blocks
We don't currently apply automatic formatting to doc comment code blocks. As a
result, it has built up various idiosyncracies, which make such automatic
formatting difficult. Some of those idiosyncracies also make things harder for
human readers or other tools.
This PR makes a few improvements to doc code formatting, in the hopes of making
future automatic formatting easier, as well as in many cases providing net
readability improvements.
I would suggest reading each commit separately, as each commit contains one
class of changes.
Because doc code does not get automatically formatted, some doc code has
creative placements of comments that automatic formatting can't handle.
Reformat those comments to make the resulting code support standard Rust
formatting without breaking; this is generally an improvement to
readability as well.
Some comments are not indented to the prevailing indent, and are instead
aligned under some bit of code. Indent them to the prevailing indent,
and put spaces *inside* the comments to align them with code.
Some comments span several lines of code (which aren't the line the
comment is about) and expect alignment. Reformat them into one comment
not broken up by unrelated intervening code.
Some comments are placed on the same line as an opening brace, placing
them effectively inside the subsequent block, such that formatting would
typically format them like a line of that block. Move those comments to
attach them to what they apply to.
Some comments are placed on the same line as a one-line braced block,
effectively attaching them to the closing brace, even though they're
about the code inside the block. Reformat to make sure the comment will
stay on the same line as the code it's commenting.
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.
Make slice comparisons const
This needed a fix for `derive_const`, too, as it wasn't usable in libcore anymore as trait impls need const stability attributes. I think we can't use the same system as normal trait impls while `const_trait_impl` is still unstable.
r? ```@fee1-dead```
cc rust-lang/rust#143800
Only inherit local hash for paths
`DefPathHash`, as the counterpart of `DefId` that is stable across compiler invocations, is comprised of 2 parts. The first one is the `StableCrateId`, stable form of `CrateNum`. The second is 64 complementary bits to identify the crate-local definition.
The current implementation always hashes the full 128 bits when (1) trying to create a new child `DefPathHash` or (2) hashing a `CrateNum` or a `LocalDefId`. But we only need half that information: `LocalDefId` means that the `StableCrateId` is always the current crate's ; `CrateNum` means that we do not care about the local part.
As stable hashing is very hot in the query system, in particular hashing definitions, this is a big deal.
We still want the local part to change when the `StableCrateId` changes, to make incr-compilation errors less painful, ie. increase the likelihood that if will magically disappear by changing some code.
This PR sprinkles some `#[inline]` attributes on small functions that appeared in profiles.
make `cfg_select` a builtin macro
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115585
This parses mostly the same as the `macro cfg_select` version, except:
1. wrapping in double brackets is no longer supported (or needed): `cfg_select {{ /* ... */ }}` is now rejected.
2. in an expression context, the rhs is no longer wrapped in a block, so that this now works:
```rust
fn main() {
println!(cfg_select! {
unix => { "foo" }
_ => { "bar" }
});
}
```
3. a single wildcard rule is now supported: `cfg_select { _ => 1 }` now works
I've also added an error if none of the rules evaluate to true, and warnings for any arms that follow the `_` wildcard rule.
cc `@traviscross` if I'm missing any feature that should/should not be included
r? `@petrochenkov` for the macro logic details
de-duplicate condition scoping logic between AST→HIR lowering and `ScopeTree` construction
There was some overlap between `rustc_ast_lowering::LoweringContext::lower_cond` and `rustc_hir_analysis::check::region::resolve_expr`, so I've removed the former and migrated its logic to the latter, with some simplifications.
Consequences:
- For `while` and `if` expressions' `let`-chains, this changes the `HirId`s for the `&&`s to properly correspond to their AST nodes. This is how guards were handled already.
- This makes match guards share previously-duplicated logic with `if`/`while` expressions. This will also be used by guard pattern[^1] guards.
- Aside from legacy syntax extensions (e.g. some builtin macros) that directly feed AST to the compiler, it's currently impossible to put attributes directly on `&&` operators in `let` chains[^2]. Nonetheless, attributes on `&&` operators in `let` chains in `if`/`while` expression conditions are no longer silently ignored and will be lowered.
- This no longer wraps conditions in `DropTemps`, so the HIR and THIR will be slightly smaller.
- `DesugaringKind::CondTemporary` is now gone. It's no longer applied to any spans, and all uses of it were dead since they were made to account for `if` and `while` being desugared to `match` on a boolean scrutinee.
- Should be a marginal perf improvement beyond that due to leveraging [`ScopeTree` construction](5e749eb66f/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/check/region.rs (L312-L355))'s clever handling of `&&` and `||`:
- This removes some unnecessary terminating scopes that were placed around top-level `&&` and `||` operators in conditions. When lowered to MIR, logical operator chains don't create intermediate boolean temporaries, so there's no temporary to drop. The linked snippet handles wrapping the operands in terminating scopes as necessary, in case they create temporaries.
- The linked snippet takes care of letting `let` temporaries live and terminating other operands, so we don't need separate traversals of `&&` chains for that.
[^1]: rust-lang/rust#129967
[^2]: Case-by-case, here's my justification: `#[attr] e1 && e2` applies the attribute to `e1`. In `#[attr] (e1 && e2)` , the attribute is on the parentheses in the AST, plus it'd fail to parse if `e1` or `e2` contains a `let`. In `#[attr] expands_to_let_chain!()`, the attribute would already be ignored (rust-lang/rust#63221) and it'd fail to parse anyway; even if the expansion site is a condition, the expansion wouldn't be parsed with `Restrictions::ALLOW_LET`. If it *was* allowed, the notion of a "reparse context" from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61733#issuecomment-509626449 would be necessary in order to make `let`-chains left-associative; multiple places in the compiler assume they are.
setup typos check in CI
This allows to check typos in CI, currently for compiler only (to reduce commit size with fixes). With current setup, exclude list is quite short, so it worth trying?
Also includes commits with actual typo fixes.
MCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/817
typos check currently turned for:
* ./compiler
* ./library
* ./src/bootstrap
* ./src/librustdoc
After merging, PRs which enables checks for other crates (tools) can be implemented too.
Found typos will **not break** other jobs immediately: (tests, building compiler for perf run). Job will be marked as red on completion in ~ 20 secs, so you will not forget to fix it whenever you want, before merging pr.
Check typos: `python x.py test tidy --extra-checks=spellcheck`
Apply typo fixes: `python x.py test tidy --extra-checks=spellcheck:fix` (in case if there only 1 suggestion of each typo)
Current fail in this pr is expected and shows how typo errors emitted. Commit with error will be removed after r+.
Rewrite `macro_rules!` parser to not use the MBE engine itself
The `macro_rules!` parser was written to match the series of rules using the macros-by-example (MBE) engine and a hand-written equivalent of the left-hand side of a MBE macro. This was complex to read, difficult to extend, and produced confusing error messages. Because it was using the MBE engine, any parse failure would be reported as if some macro was being applied to the `macro_rules!` invocation itself; for instance, errors would talk about "macro invocation", "macro arguments", and "macro call", when they were actually about the macro *definition*.
And in practice, the `macro_rules!` parser only used the MBE engine to extract the left-hand side and right-hand side of each rule as a token tree, and then parsed the rest using a separate parser.
Rewrite it to parse the series of rules using a simple loop, instead. This makes it more extensible in the future, and improves error messages. For instance, omitting a semicolon between rules will result in "expected `;`" and "unexpected token", rather than the confusing "no rules expected this token in macro call".
This work was greatly aided by pair programming with Vincenzo Palazzo (`@vincenzopalazzo)` and Eric Holk (`@eholk).`
For review, I recommend reading the two commits separately.
