mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
598d836fff
rust/src/test/ui/target-feature-wrong.stderr

48 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

rustc: Tweak `#[target_feature]` syntax This is an implementation of the `#[target_feature]` syntax-related changes of [RFC 2045][rfc]. Notably two changes have been implemented: * The new syntax is `#[target_feature(enable = "..")]` instead of `#[target_feature = "+.."]`. The `enable` key is necessary instead of the `+` to indicate that a feature is being enabled, and a sub-list is used for possible expansion in the future. Additionally within this syntax the feature names being enabled are now whitelisted against a known set of target feature names that we know about. * The `#[target_feature]` attribute can only be applied to unsafe functions. It was decided in the RFC that invoking an instruction possibly not defined for the current processor is undefined behavior, so to enable this feature for now it requires an `unsafe` intervention. [rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2045-target-feature.md
2018-01-05 15:26:26 -06:00
warning: #[target_feature = ".."] is deprecated and will eventually be removed, use #[target_feature(enable = "..")] instead
Add ignores for powerpc and s390x to target-feature-wrong.rs and update references.
2018-04-10 03:19:58 -05:00
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:21:1
rustc: Tweak `#[target_feature]` syntax This is an implementation of the `#[target_feature]` syntax-related changes of [RFC 2045][rfc]. Notably two changes have been implemented: * The new syntax is `#[target_feature(enable = "..")]` instead of `#[target_feature = "+.."]`. The `enable` key is necessary instead of the `+` to indicate that a feature is being enabled, and a sub-list is used for possible expansion in the future. Additionally within this syntax the feature names being enabled are now whitelisted against a known set of target feature names that we know about. * The `#[target_feature]` attribute can only be applied to unsafe functions. It was decided in the RFC that invoking an instruction possibly not defined for the current processor is undefined behavior, so to enable this feature for now it requires an `unsafe` intervention. [rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2045-target-feature.md
2018-01-05 15:26:26 -06:00
|
Update UI tests
2018-02-22 18:42:32 -06:00
LL | #[target_feature = "+sse2"]
rustc: Tweak `#[target_feature]` syntax This is an implementation of the `#[target_feature]` syntax-related changes of [RFC 2045][rfc]. Notably two changes have been implemented: * The new syntax is `#[target_feature(enable = "..")]` instead of `#[target_feature = "+.."]`. The `enable` key is necessary instead of the `+` to indicate that a feature is being enabled, and a sub-list is used for possible expansion in the future. Additionally within this syntax the feature names being enabled are now whitelisted against a known set of target feature names that we know about. * The `#[target_feature]` attribute can only be applied to unsafe functions. It was decided in the RFC that invoking an instruction possibly not defined for the current processor is undefined behavior, so to enable this feature for now it requires an `unsafe` intervention. [rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2045-target-feature.md
2018-01-05 15:26:26 -06:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: the feature named `foo` is not valid for this target
Add ignores for powerpc and s390x to target-feature-wrong.rs and update references.
2018-04-10 03:19:58 -05:00
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:23:18
rustc: Tweak `#[target_feature]` syntax This is an implementation of the `#[target_feature]` syntax-related changes of [RFC 2045][rfc]. Notably two changes have been implemented: * The new syntax is `#[target_feature(enable = "..")]` instead of `#[target_feature = "+.."]`. The `enable` key is necessary instead of the `+` to indicate that a feature is being enabled, and a sub-list is used for possible expansion in the future. Additionally within this syntax the feature names being enabled are now whitelisted against a known set of target feature names that we know about. * The `#[target_feature]` attribute can only be applied to unsafe functions. It was decided in the RFC that invoking an instruction possibly not defined for the current processor is undefined behavior, so to enable this feature for now it requires an `unsafe` intervention. [rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2045-target-feature.md
2018-01-05 15:26:26 -06:00
|
Update UI tests
2018-02-22 18:42:32 -06:00
LL | #[target_feature(enable = "foo")]
rustc: Tweak `#[target_feature]` syntax This is an implementation of the `#[target_feature]` syntax-related changes of [RFC 2045][rfc]. Notably two changes have been implemented: * The new syntax is `#[target_feature(enable = "..")]` instead of `#[target_feature = "+.."]`. The `enable` key is necessary instead of the `+` to indicate that a feature is being enabled, and a sub-list is used for possible expansion in the future. Additionally within this syntax the feature names being enabled are now whitelisted against a known set of target feature names that we know about. * The `#[target_feature]` attribute can only be applied to unsafe functions. It was decided in the RFC that invoking an instruction possibly not defined for the current processor is undefined behavior, so to enable this feature for now it requires an `unsafe` intervention. [rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2045-target-feature.md
2018-01-05 15:26:26 -06:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: #[target_feature(..)] only accepts sub-keys of `enable` currently
Add ignores for powerpc and s390x to target-feature-wrong.rs and update references.
2018-04-10 03:19:58 -05:00
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:25:18
rustc: Tweak `#[target_feature]` syntax This is an implementation of the `#[target_feature]` syntax-related changes of [RFC 2045][rfc]. Notably two changes have been implemented: * The new syntax is `#[target_feature(enable = "..")]` instead of `#[target_feature = "+.."]`. The `enable` key is necessary instead of the `+` to indicate that a feature is being enabled, and a sub-list is used for possible expansion in the future. Additionally within this syntax the feature names being enabled are now whitelisted against a known set of target feature names that we know about. * The `#[target_feature]` attribute can only be applied to unsafe functions. It was decided in the RFC that invoking an instruction possibly not defined for the current processor is undefined behavior, so to enable this feature for now it requires an `unsafe` intervention. [rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2045-target-feature.md
2018-01-05 15:26:26 -06:00
|
Update UI tests
2018-02-22 18:42:32 -06:00
LL | #[target_feature(bar)]
rustc: Tweak `#[target_feature]` syntax This is an implementation of the `#[target_feature]` syntax-related changes of [RFC 2045][rfc]. Notably two changes have been implemented: * The new syntax is `#[target_feature(enable = "..")]` instead of `#[target_feature = "+.."]`. The `enable` key is necessary instead of the `+` to indicate that a feature is being enabled, and a sub-list is used for possible expansion in the future. Additionally within this syntax the feature names being enabled are now whitelisted against a known set of target feature names that we know about. * The `#[target_feature]` attribute can only be applied to unsafe functions. It was decided in the RFC that invoking an instruction possibly not defined for the current processor is undefined behavior, so to enable this feature for now it requires an `unsafe` intervention. [rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2045-target-feature.md
2018-01-05 15:26:26 -06:00
| ^^^
error: #[target_feature(..)] only accepts sub-keys of `enable` currently
Add ignores for powerpc and s390x to target-feature-wrong.rs and update references.
2018-04-10 03:19:58 -05:00
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:27:18
rustc: Tweak `#[target_feature]` syntax This is an implementation of the `#[target_feature]` syntax-related changes of [RFC 2045][rfc]. Notably two changes have been implemented: * The new syntax is `#[target_feature(enable = "..")]` instead of `#[target_feature = "+.."]`. The `enable` key is necessary instead of the `+` to indicate that a feature is being enabled, and a sub-list is used for possible expansion in the future. Additionally within this syntax the feature names being enabled are now whitelisted against a known set of target feature names that we know about. * The `#[target_feature]` attribute can only be applied to unsafe functions. It was decided in the RFC that invoking an instruction possibly not defined for the current processor is undefined behavior, so to enable this feature for now it requires an `unsafe` intervention. [rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2045-target-feature.md
2018-01-05 15:26:26 -06:00
|
Update UI tests
2018-02-22 18:42:32 -06:00
LL | #[target_feature(disable = "baz")]
rustc: Tweak `#[target_feature]` syntax This is an implementation of the `#[target_feature]` syntax-related changes of [RFC 2045][rfc]. Notably two changes have been implemented: * The new syntax is `#[target_feature(enable = "..")]` instead of `#[target_feature = "+.."]`. The `enable` key is necessary instead of the `+` to indicate that a feature is being enabled, and a sub-list is used for possible expansion in the future. Additionally within this syntax the feature names being enabled are now whitelisted against a known set of target feature names that we know about. * The `#[target_feature]` attribute can only be applied to unsafe functions. It was decided in the RFC that invoking an instruction possibly not defined for the current processor is undefined behavior, so to enable this feature for now it requires an `unsafe` intervention. [rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2045-target-feature.md
2018-01-05 15:26:26 -06:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: #[target_feature(..)] can only be applied to `unsafe` function
Add ignores for powerpc and s390x to target-feature-wrong.rs and update references.
2018-04-10 03:19:58 -05:00
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:31:1
rustc: Tweak `#[target_feature]` syntax This is an implementation of the `#[target_feature]` syntax-related changes of [RFC 2045][rfc]. Notably two changes have been implemented: * The new syntax is `#[target_feature(enable = "..")]` instead of `#[target_feature = "+.."]`. The `enable` key is necessary instead of the `+` to indicate that a feature is being enabled, and a sub-list is used for possible expansion in the future. Additionally within this syntax the feature names being enabled are now whitelisted against a known set of target feature names that we know about. * The `#[target_feature]` attribute can only be applied to unsafe functions. It was decided in the RFC that invoking an instruction possibly not defined for the current processor is undefined behavior, so to enable this feature for now it requires an `unsafe` intervention. [rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2045-target-feature.md
2018-01-05 15:26:26 -06:00
|
Update UI tests
2018-02-22 18:42:32 -06:00
LL | #[target_feature(enable = "sse2")]
rustc: Tweak `#[target_feature]` syntax This is an implementation of the `#[target_feature]` syntax-related changes of [RFC 2045][rfc]. Notably two changes have been implemented: * The new syntax is `#[target_feature(enable = "..")]` instead of `#[target_feature = "+.."]`. The `enable` key is necessary instead of the `+` to indicate that a feature is being enabled, and a sub-list is used for possible expansion in the future. Additionally within this syntax the feature names being enabled are now whitelisted against a known set of target feature names that we know about. * The `#[target_feature]` attribute can only be applied to unsafe functions. It was decided in the RFC that invoking an instruction possibly not defined for the current processor is undefined behavior, so to enable this feature for now it requires an `unsafe` intervention. [rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2045-target-feature.md
2018-01-05 15:26:26 -06:00
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
rustc: Fix ICE with `#[target_feature]` on module This commit fixes an ICE in rustc when `#[target_feature]` was applied to items other than functions due to the way the feature was validated.
2018-03-05 10:12:13 -06:00
error: attribute should be applied to a function
Add ignores for powerpc and s390x to target-feature-wrong.rs and update references.
2018-04-10 03:19:58 -05:00
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:35:1
rustc: Fix ICE with `#[target_feature]` on module This commit fixes an ICE in rustc when `#[target_feature]` was applied to items other than functions due to the way the feature was validated.
2018-03-05 10:12:13 -06:00
|
LL | #[target_feature(enable = "sse2")]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LL | //~^ ERROR: should be applied to a function
LL | mod another {}
| -------------- not a function
rustc: Forbid #[inline(always)] with #[target_feature] Once a target feature is enabled for a function that means that it in general can't be inlined into other functions which don't have that target feature enabled. This can cause both safety and LLVM issues if we were to actually inline it, so `#[inline(always)]` both can't be respected and would be an error if we did so! Today LLVM doesn't inline functions with different `#[target_feature]` annotations, but it turns out that if one is tagged with `#[inline(always)]` it'll override this and cause scary LLVM error to arise! This commit fixes this issue by forbidding these two attributes to be used in conjunction with one another. cc rust-lang-nursery/stdsimd#404
2018-03-27 13:42:04 -05:00
error: cannot use #[inline(always)] with #[target_feature]
Add ignores for powerpc and s390x to target-feature-wrong.rs and update references.
2018-04-10 03:19:58 -05:00
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:39:1
rustc: Forbid #[inline(always)] with #[target_feature] Once a target feature is enabled for a function that means that it in general can't be inlined into other functions which don't have that target feature enabled. This can cause both safety and LLVM issues if we were to actually inline it, so `#[inline(always)]` both can't be respected and would be an error if we did so! Today LLVM doesn't inline functions with different `#[target_feature]` annotations, but it turns out that if one is tagged with `#[inline(always)]` it'll override this and cause scary LLVM error to arise! This commit fixes this issue by forbidding these two attributes to be used in conjunction with one another. cc rust-lang-nursery/stdsimd#404
2018-03-27 13:42:04 -05:00
|
LL | #[inline(always)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to 6 previous errors
rustc: Tweak `#[target_feature]` syntax This is an implementation of the `#[target_feature]` syntax-related changes of [RFC 2045][rfc]. Notably two changes have been implemented: * The new syntax is `#[target_feature(enable = "..")]` instead of `#[target_feature = "+.."]`. The `enable` key is necessary instead of the `+` to indicate that a feature is being enabled, and a sub-list is used for possible expansion in the future. Additionally within this syntax the feature names being enabled are now whitelisted against a known set of target feature names that we know about. * The `#[target_feature]` attribute can only be applied to unsafe functions. It was decided in the RFC that invoking an instruction possibly not defined for the current processor is undefined behavior, so to enable this feature for now it requires an `unsafe` intervention. [rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2045-target-feature.md
2018-01-05 15:26:26 -06:00
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink