Clarified error note for usize range matching
Fixesrust-lang/rust#146476
This is kinda rough, but it gets the point across a little better and stays short.
Introduce CoerceShared lang item and trait, and basic Reborrow tests
Part of rust-lang/rust#145612: This introduces the `CoerceShared` trait which is the `Reborrow` equivalent of a `&mut T` -> `&T` coercion. The trait has a `Target` GAT which makes this (currently) unique in the `core/src/marker.rs`; I'm not sure if this can be considered problematic. Maybe this is not the way such things should be done at the marker trait level? Or maybe it is fine.
Improtantly, this PR introduces a battery of basic `Reborrow` and `CoerceShared` tests. These test the very basics of the feature; custom marker types intended to have exclusive semantics (`Custom<'a>(PhantomData<&'a mut ()>)`), custom exclusive reference wrappers, and standard library exclusive reference wrappers (`Pin<&mut T>` and `Option<&mut T>`). None of these of course work since the implementation for `Reborrow` and `CoerceShared` is entirely missing, but this is the first step towards making these work.
Future PRs will introduce more tests, such as "recursive" reborrowing (ie. reborrowing structs that contain multiple reborrowable fields) and checks around the lifetime semantics of reborrowing ie. that a reborrow produces a new type with the same lifetime as the original.
c-variadic: allow c-variadic inherent and trait methods
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44930
Continuing the work of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146342, allow inherent and trait methods to be c-variadic. However, a trait that contains a c-variadic method is no longer dyn-compatible.
There is, presumably, some way to make c-variadic methods dyn-compatible. However currently, we don't have confidence that it'll work reliably: when methods from a `dyn` object are cast to a function pointer, a `ReifyShim` is created. If that shim is c-variadic, it would need to forward the C variable argument list.
That does appear to work, because the `va_list` is not represented in MIR at all in this case, so the registers from the call site are untouched by the shim and can be read by the actual implementation. That just does not seem like a solid implementation.
Also, intuitively, why would c-variadic function, primarily needed for FFI, need to be used with `dyn` objects at all? We can revisit this limitation if a need arises.
r? `@workingjubilee`
Convert `no_std` and `no_core` to the new attribute infrastructure
r? ```@oli-obk```
Also added a test for these, since we didn't have any and I was kind of surprised new diagnostics didn't break anything hehe
These "you are using $RUSTC_VERSION" help messages were removed in
rust-lang/rust#142943, but rust-lang/rust#142681 started before that and
merged later, so its normalization is vestigial.
but a C-variadic method makes a trait dyn-incompatible. That is because
methods from dyn traits, when cast to a function pointer, create a shim.
That shim can't really forward the c-variadic arguments.
Improve C-variadic error messages: part 2
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44930
a reimplementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143546 that builds on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146165.
This PR
- disallows coroutines (e.g. `async fn`) from having a `...` argument
- disallows associated functions (both in traits and standard impl blocks) from having a `...` argument
- splits up a generic "ill-formed C-variadic function" into specific errors about using an incorrect ABI, not specifying an ABI, or missing the unsafe keyword
C-variadic coroutines probably don't make sense? C-variadic functions are for FFI purposes, combining that with async functions seems weird.
For associated functions, we're just cutting scope. It's probably fine, but it's probably better to explicitly allow it. So for now, at least give a more targeted error message.
Made to be reviewed commit-by-commit.
cc `@workingjubilee`
r? compiler
Implement `#[rustc_align_static(N)]` on `static`s
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/146177
```rust
#![feature(static_align)]
#[rustc_align_static(64)]
static SO_ALIGNED: u64 = 0;
```
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]`.
r? `@traviscross`
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
stabilize c-style varargs for sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs
This has been split up so the PR now only contains the extended_varargs_abi_support stabilization; "system" has been moved to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145954.
**Previous (combined) PR description:**
This stabilizes extern block declarations of variadic functions with the system, sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs ABIs. This corresponds to the extended_varargs_abi_support and extern_system_varargs feature gates.
The feature gates were split up since it seemed like there might be further discussion needed for what exactly "system" ABI variadic functions should do, but a [consensus](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136946#issuecomment-2967847553) has meanwhile been reached: they shall behave like "C" functions. IOW, the ABI of a "system" function is (bold part is new in this PR):
- "stdcall" for win32 targets **for non-variadic functions**
- "C" for everything else
This had been previously stabilized *without FCP* in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116161, which got reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136897. There was also a "fun" race condition involved with the system ABI being [added](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119587) to the list of variadic-supporting ABIs between the creation and merge of rust-lang/rust#116161.
There was a question raised [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116161#issuecomment-1983829513) whether t-lang even needs to be involved for a change like this. Not sure if that has meanwhile been clarified? The behavior of the "system" ABI (a Rust-specific ABI) definitely feels like t-lang territory to me.
Fixesrust-lang/rust#100189
Cc `@rust-lang/lang`
# Stabilization report
> ## General design
> ### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
AFAIK there is no RFC. The tracking issues are
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100189
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136946
> ### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
The only controversial point is whether "system" ABI functions should support variadics.
- Pro: This allows crates like windows-rs to consistently use "system", see e.g. https://github.com/microsoft/windows-rs/issues/3626.
- Cons: `@workingjubilee` had some implementation concerns, but I think those have been [resolved](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136946#issuecomment-2967847553). EDIT: turns out Jubilee still has concerns (she mentioned that in a DM); I'll let her express those.
Note that "system" is already a magic ABI we introduced to "do the right thing". This just makes it do the right thing in more cases. In particular, it means that on Windows one can almost always just do
```rust
extern "system" {
// put all the things here
}
```
and it'll do the right thing, rather than having to split imports into non-varargs and varargs, with the varargs in a separate `extern "C"` block (and risking accidentally putting a non-vararg there).
(I am saying "almost" always because some Windows API functions actually use cdecl, not stdcall, on x86. Those of course need to go in `extern "C"` blocks.)
> ### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
Actually defining variadic functions in Rust remains unstable, under the [c_variadic feature gate](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44930).
> ## Has a Call for Testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
>
> Does any OSS nightly users use this feature? For instance, a useful indication might be "search <grep.app> for `#![feature(FEATURE_NAME)]` and had `N` results".
There was no call for testing.
A search brings up https://github.com/rust-osdev/uefi-rs/blob/main/uefi-raw/src/table/boot.rs using this for "efiapi". This doesn't seem widely used, but it is an "obvious" gap in our support for c-variadics.
> ## Implementation quality
All rustc does here is forward the ABI to LLVM so there's lot a lot to say here...
> ### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
>
> An example for async closures: <https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/coroutine-closures.html>.
The check for allowed variadic ABIs is [here](9c870d30e2/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/lib.rs (L109-L126)).
The special handling of "system" is [here](c24914ec83/compiler/rustc_target/src/spec/abi_map.rs (L82-L85)).
> ### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
>
> Consider what the "edges" of this feature are. We're particularly interested in seeing tests that assure us about exactly what nearby things we're not stabilizing.
>
> Within each test, include a comment at the top describing the purpose of the test and what set of invariants it intends to demonstrate. This is a great help to those reviewing the tests at stabilization time.
>
> - What does the test coverage landscape for this feature look like?
> - Tests for compiler errors when you use the feature wrongly or make mistakes?
> - Tests for the feature itself:
> - Limits of the feature (so failing compilation)
> - Exercises of edge cases of the feature
> - Tests that checks the feature works as expected (where applicable, `//@ run-pass`).
> - Are there any intentional gaps in test coverage?
>
> Link to test folders or individual tests (ui/codegen/assembly/run-make tests, etc.).
Prior PRs add a codegen test for all ABIs and tests actually calling extern variadic functions for sysv64 and win64:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144359
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144379
We don't have a way of executing uefi target code in the test suite, so it's unclear how to fully test efiapi. aapcs could probably be done? (But note that we have hardly an such actually-calling-functions tests for ABI things, we almost entirely rely on codegen tests.)
The test ensuring that we do *not* stabilize *defining* c-variadic functions is `tests/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-c_variadic.rs`.
> ### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
None that I am aware of.
> ### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None that I am aware of.
> ### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
`@Soveu` added sysv64, win64, efiapi, aapcs to the list of ABIs that allow variadics, `@beepster4096` added system. `@workingjubilee` recently refactored the ABI handling in the compiler, also affecting this feature.
> ### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
>
> Consider rustdoc, clippy, rust-analyzer, rustfmt, rustup, docs.rs.
Maybe RA needs to be taught about the new allowed ABIs? No idea how precisely they mirror what exactly rustc accepts and rejects here.
> ## Type system and execution rules
> ### What compilation-time checks are done that are needed to prevent undefined behavior?
>
> (Be sure to link to tests demonstrating that these tests are being done.)
Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs.
> ### Does the feature's implementation need checks to prevent UB or is it sound by default and needs opt in in places to perform the dangerous/unsafe operations? If it is not sound by default, what is the rationale?
Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs.
> ### Can users use this feature to introduce undefined behavior, or use this feature to break the abstraction of Rust and expose the underlying assembly-level implementation? (Describe.)
Nothing new here, this just expands the existing support for calling variadic functions to more ABIs.
> ### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
- https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1936
> ## Common interactions
> ### Does this feature introduce new expressions and can they produce temporaries? What are the lifetimes of those temporaries?
No.
> ### What other unstable features may be exposed by this feature?
None.
Add new `doc(attribute = "...")` attribute
Fixesrust-lang/rust#141123.
The implementation and purpose of this new `#[doc(attribute = "...")]` attribute is very close to `#[doc(keyword = "...")]`. Which means that luckily for us, most of the code needed was already in place and `@Noratrieb` nicely wrote a first draft that helped me implement this new attribute very fast.
Now with all this said, there is one thing I didn't do yet: adding a `rustdoc-js-std` test. I added GUI tests with search results for attributes so should be fine but I still plan on adding one for it once documentation for builtin attributes will be written into the core/std libs.
You can test it [here](https://rustdoc.crud.net/imperio/doc-attribute-attribute/foo/index.html).
cc `@Noratrieb` `@Veykril`
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.
On E0277, point at type that doesn't implement bound
When encountering an unmet trait bound, point at local type that doesn't implement the trait:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `Bar<T>: Foo` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/issue-64855.rs:9:19
|
LL | pub struct Bar<T>(<Self as Foo>::Type) where Self: ;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unsatisfied trait bound
|
help: the trait `Foo` is not implemented for `Bar<T>`
--> $DIR/issue-64855.rs:9:1
|
LL | pub struct Bar<T>(<Self as Foo>::Type) where Self: ;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
When encountering an unmet trait bound, point at local type that doesn't implement the trait:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `Bar<T>: Foo` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/issue-64855.rs:9:19
|
LL | pub struct Bar<T>(<Self as Foo>::Type) where Self: ;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unsatisfied trait bound
|
help: the trait `Foo` is not implemented for `Bar<T>`
--> $DIR/issue-64855.rs:9:1
|
LL | pub struct Bar<T>(<Self as Foo>::Type) where Self: ;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
mention lint group in default level lint note
### Summary
This PR updates lint diagnostics so that default-level notes now mention the lint group they belong to, if any.
Fixes: rust-lang/rust#65464.
### Example
```rust
fn main() {
let x = 5;
}
```
Before:
```
= note: `#[warn(unused_variables)]` on by default
```
After:
```
= note: `#[warn(unused_variables)]` (part of `#[warn(unused)]`) on by default
```
### Unchanged Cases
Messages remain the same when the lint level is explicitly set, e.g.:
* Attribute on the lint `#[warn(unused_variables)]`:
```
note: the lint level is defined here
LL | #[warn(unused_variables)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
* Attribute on the group `#[warn(unused)]:`:
```
= note: `#[warn(unused_variables)]` implied by `#[warn(unused)]`
```
* CLI option `-W unused`:
```
= note: `-W unused-variables` implied by `-W unused`
= help: to override `-W unused` add `#[allow(unused_variables)]`
```
* CLI option `-W unused-variables`:
```
= note: requested on the command line with `-W unused-variables`
```
Port must_use to the new target checking
This PR ports `must_use` to the new target checking logic
This also adds a tool-only suggestion to remove attributes on invalid targets, as to not immediately undo the work of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145274
r? `@jdonszelmann`
Remove the `From` derive macro from prelude
The new `#[derive(From)]` functionality (implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144922) caused name resolution ambiguity issues (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/145524). The reproducer looks e.g. like this:
```rust
mod foo {
pub use derive_more::From;
}
use foo::*;
#[derive(From)] // ERROR: `From` is ambiguous
struct S(u32);
```
It's pretty unfortunate that it works like this, but I guess that there's not much to be done here, and we'll have to wait for the next edition to put the `From` macro into the prelude. That will probably require https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139493 to land.
I created a new module in core (and re-exported it in std) called `from`, where I re-exported the `From` macro. I *think* that since this is a new module, it should not have the same backwards incompatibility issue.
Happy to hear suggestions about the naming - maybe it would make sense as `core::macros::from::From`? But we already had a precedent in the `core::assert_matches` module, so I just followed suit.
Fixes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/145524
r? ``@petrochenkov``
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.
