rustbuild: fix local_rebuild
If we detect a local rebuild (e.g. bootstrap compiler is the same version as target compiler), we set stage to 1.
When trying to build e.g. UnstableBook, we use Mode::ToolBootstrap and stage is 1.
Just allow Mode::ToolBootstrap and stagge != 0 if we are in a local_rebuild
This fixes building current master using current beta (as master hasn't yet been bumped to 1.30).
This should be backported to beta too, as currently we cannot build beta using itself because of that.
r? @alexcrichton
App-lint-cability
@eminence recently pointed out (rust-lang/cargo#5846) that it's
surprising that `cargo fix` (now shipping with Cargo itself!) doesn't
fix very common lint warnings, which is as good of a reminder as any
that we should finish #50723.
(Previously, we did this on the librustc and libsyntax crates in #50724. I filed cmr/this-week-in-rust#685 in hopes of recruiting new contributors to do the rest.)
r? @estebank
Align 6-week cycle check with beta promotion instead of stable release.
The regression check is to make beta promotion easier, so it makes more
sense to use the Tuesday of the release week (T-2) as the end point of the
regression prevention, instead of Thursday (T-0). But since the beta
promotion PR is sent at Tuesday evening at UTC, the protection should
include the whole Tuesday as well, meaning the 6-week cycle will start from
Wednesdays.
This will also move the start of the regression protection week one day
earlier.
Reintroduce `Undef` and properly check constant value sizes
r? @RalfJung
cc @eddyb
basically all kinds of silent failures that never occurred are assertions now
Disable debug sections when optimization flags is set for LLD.
Currently LLD does not error when optimization is set and debugging information sections are present. (See discussion at https://reviews.llvm.org/D47901)
Using `--strip-debug` along with the `-O` option.
check_const: use the same ParamEnv as codegen for statics
Fixes at least part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52849 (my CTFE-stress benchmark). Note that I do not know what I am doing here, this is just based on hints from @oli-obk.
r? @oli-obk
Update tool submodules, update feature unification strategy
* Bring in some fixes for `cargo fix`
* Update RLS/rustfmt to keep them compiling
* Update all tools to [depend on `rustc-workspace-hack`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/52919#issuecomment-409802418)
* Change how we deal with feature unification amongst these builds.
resolve: Implement prelude search for macro paths, implement tool attributes
When identifier is macro path is resolved in scopes (i.e. the first path segment - `foo` in `foo::mac!()` or `foo!()`), scopes are searched in the same order as for non-macro paths - items in modules, extern prelude, tool prelude (see later), standard library prelude, language prelude, but with some extra shadowing restrictions (names from globs and macro expansions cannot shadow names from outer scopes). See the comment in `fn resolve_lexical_macro_path_segment` for more details.
"Tool prelude" currently contains two "tool modules" `rustfmt` and `clippy`, and is searched immediately after extern prelude.
This makes the [possible long-term solution](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2103-tool-attributes.md#long-term-solution) for tool attributes exactly equivalent to the existing extern prelude scheme, except that `--extern=my_crate` making crate names available in scope is replaced with something like `--tool=my_tool` making tool names available in scope.
The `tool_attributes` feature is still unstable and `#![feature(tool_attributes)]` now implicitly enables `#![feature(use_extern_macros)]`. `use_extern_macros` is a prerequisite for `tool_attributes`, so their stabilization will happen in the same order.
If `use_extern_macros` is not enabled, then tool attributes are treated as custom attributes (this is temporary, anyway).
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52576
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52512
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51277
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52269
[NLL] Dangly paths for box
Special-case `Box` in `rustc_mir::borrow_check`.
Since we know dropping a box will not access any `&mut` or `&` references, it is safe to model its destructor as only touching the contents *owned* by the box.
----
There are three main things going on here:
1. The first main thing, this PR is fixing a bug in NLL where `rustc` previously would issue a diagnostic error in a case like this:
```rust
fn foo(x: Box<&mut i32>) -> &mut i32 { &mut **x }
```
such code was accepted by the AST-borrowck in the past, but NLL was rejecting it with the following message ([playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?gist=13c5560f73bfb16d6dab3ceaad44c0f8&version=nightly&mode=release&edition=2015))
```
error[E0597]: `**x` does not live long enough
--> src/main.rs:3:40
|
3 | fn foo(x: Box<&mut i32>) -> &mut i32 { &mut **x }
| ^^^^^^^^ - `**x` dropped here while still borrowed
| |
| borrowed value does not live long enough
|
note: borrowed value must be valid for the anonymous lifetime #1 defined on the function body at 3:1...
--> src/main.rs:3:1
|
3 | fn foo(x: Box<&mut i32>) -> &mut i32 { &mut **x }
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
```
2. The second main thing: The reason such code was previously rejected was because NLL (MIR-borrowck) incorporates a fix for issue #31567, where it models a destructor's execution as potentially accessing any borrows held by the thing being destructed. The tests with `Scribble` model this, showing that the compiler now catches such unsoundness.
However, that fix for issue #31567 is too strong, in that NLL (MIR-borrowck) includes `Box` as one of the types with a destructor that potentially accesses any borrows held by the box. This thus was the cause of the main remaining discrepancy between AST-borrowck and MIR-borrowck, as documented in issue #45696, specifically in [the last example of this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/45696#issuecomment-345367873), which I have adapted into the `fn foo` shown above.
We did close issue #45696 back in December of 2017, but AFAICT that example was not fixed by PR #46268. (And we did not include a test, etc etc.)
This PR fixes that case, by trying to model the so-called `DerefPure` semantics of `Box<T>` when we traverse the type of the input to `visit_terminator_drop`.
3. The third main thing is that during a review of the first draft of this PR, @matthewjasper pointed out that the new traversal of `Box<T>` could cause the compiler to infinite loop. I have adjusted the PR to avoid this (by tracking what types we have previously seen), and added a much needed test of this somewhat odd scenario. (Its an odd scenario because the particular case only arises for things like `struct A(Box<A>);`, something which cannot be constructed in practice.)
Fix#45696.
