mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
9c9424de51
rust/src/test/ui/target-feature-wrong.stderr

42 lines
1.3 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
rustc: Refactor attribute checking to operate on HIR This'll enable running queries that could be cached and overall be more amenable to the query infastructure.
2018-01-08 15:43:42 -06:00
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:18:1
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
rustc: Refactor attribute checking to operate on HIR This'll enable running queries that could be cached and overall be more amenable to the query infastructure.
2018-01-08 15:43:42 -06:00
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:20:18
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
rustc: Refactor attribute checking to operate on HIR This'll enable running queries that could be cached and overall be more amenable to the query infastructure.
2018-01-08 15:43:42 -06:00
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:22:18
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
rustc: Refactor attribute checking to operate on HIR This'll enable running queries that could be cached and overall be more amenable to the query infastructure.
2018-01-08 15:43:42 -06:00
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:24:18
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
rustc: Refactor attribute checking to operate on HIR This'll enable running queries that could be cached and overall be more amenable to the query infastructure.
2018-01-08 15:43:42 -06:00
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:28:1
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
--> $DIR/target-feature-wrong.rs:32:1
|
LL | #[target_feature(enable = "sse2")]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LL | //~^ ERROR: should be applied to a function
LL | mod another {}
| -------------- not a function
error: aborting due to 5 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