rustdoc: port the -C option from rustc
Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/49864. The included test won't work without those changes, so this PR includes those commits as well.
When documenting items that require certain target features, it helps to be able to force those target features into existence. Rather than include a flag just to parse those features, i instead decided to port the `-C` flag from rustc in its entirety. It takes the same parameters, because it runs through the same parsing function. This has the added benefit of being able to control the codegen of doctests as well.
One concern i have with the flag is that i set it to stable here. My rationale is that it is a direct port of functionality on rustc that is currently stable, used only in mechanisms that it is originally used for. If needed, i can set it back to be unstable.
Update `?` repetition disambiguation.
**Do not merge** (yet)
This is a test implementation of some ideas from discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48075 . This PR
- disallows `?` repetition from taking a separator, since the separator is never used.
- disallows the use of `?` as a separator. This allows patterns like `$(a)?+` to match `+` and `a+` rather than `a?a?a`. This is a _breaking change_, but maybe that's ok? Perhaps a crater run is the right approach?
cc @durka @alexreg @nikomatsakis
core: Remove panics from some `Layout` methods
`Layout` is often used at the core of allocation APIs and is as a result pretty
sensitive to codegen in various circumstances. I was profiling `-C opt-level=z`
with a wasm project recently and noticed that the `unwrap()` wasn't removed
inside of `Layout`, causing the program to be much larger than it otherwise
would be. If inlining were more aggressive LLVM would have figured out that the
panic could be eliminated, but in general the methods here can't panic in the
first place!
As a result this commit makes the following tweaks:
* Removes `unwrap()` and replaces it with `unsafe` in `Layout::new` and
`Layout::for_value`. For posterity though a debug assertion was left behind.
* Removes an `unwrap()` in favor of `?` in the `repeat` method. The comment
indicating that the function call couldn't panic wasn't quite right in that if
`alloc_size` becomes too large and if `align` is high enough it could indeed
cause a panic.
This'll hopefully mean that panics never get introduced into code in the first
place, ensuring that `opt-level=z` is closer to `opt-level=s` in this regard.
Add error codes for libsyntax_ext
I intend to add error codes for `libsyntax_ext` as well. However, they cannot be used at stage 0 directly so I thought it might be possible to enable them at the stage 1 only so we can have access to the macros. However, the error code registration seems to not work this way. Currently I get the following error:
```
error: used diagnostic code E0660 not registered
--> libsyntax_ext/asm.rs:93:25
|
93 | span_err!(cx, sp, E0660, "malformed inline assembly");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: this error originates in a macro outside of the current crate (in Nightly builds, run with -Z external-macro-backtrace for more info)
error: used diagnostic code E0661 not registered
--> libsyntax_ext/asm.rs:151:33
|
151 | / span_err!(cx, sp, E0661,
152 | | "output operand constraint lacks '=' or '+'");
| |________________________________________________________________________________________^
|
= note: this error originates in a macro outside of the current crate (in Nightly builds, run with -Z external-macro-backtrace for more info)
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
error: Could not compile `syntax_ext`.
```
If anyone has an idea, I'd gladly take it. I'm trying to figure this out on my side as well. I also opened this PR to know if it was worth it to continue (maybe we don't want this?).
Anyway, any answer for both questions is very welcome!
cc @rust-lang/compiler
As discussed in #15536, the LLVM documentation incorrect described
overflowing f64->f32 casts as being undefined behavior. LLVM never
treated them as such, and the documentation has been adjusted in
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL329065. As such, this warning can now
be removed.
Closes#49622.
