As part of the "arbitrary self types v2" project, we are going to
replace the current `Receiver` trait with a new mechanism based on a
new, different `Receiver` trait.
This PR renames the old trait to get it out the way. Naming is hard.
Options considered included:
* HardCodedReceiver (because it should only be used for things in the
standard library, and hence is sort-of hard coded)
* LegacyReceiver
* TargetLessReceiver
* OldReceiver
These are all bad names, but fortunately this will be temporary.
Assuming the new mechanism proceeds to stabilization as intended, the
legacy trait will be removed altogether.
Although we expect this trait to be used only in the standard library,
we suspect it may be in use elsehwere, so we're landing this change
separately to identify any surprising breakages.
It's known that this trait is used within the Rust for Linux project; a
patch is in progress to remove their dependency.
This is a part of the arbitrary self types v2 project,
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3519https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44874
r? @wesleywiser
terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it)
Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](f25e5abea2/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl (L297-L301))), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature.
So really, our terminology is just a mess.
I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.
Dominator-order information is only needed for coverage graphs, and is easy
enough to collect by just traversing the graph again.
This avoids wasted work when computing graph dominators for any other purpose.
coverage: Make counter creation handle node/edge counters more uniformly
Similar to #130380, this is another round of small improvements informed by my ongoing attempts to overhaul coverage counter creation.
One of the big benefits is getting rid of the awkward special-case that would sometimes attach an edge counter to a node instead. That was needed by the code that chooses which out-edge should be given a counter expression, but we can avoid that by making the corresponding check a little smarter.
I've also renamed several things to be simpler and more consistent, which should help with future changes.
Move const trait tests from `ui/rfcs/rfc-2632-const-trait-impl` to `ui/traits/const-traits`
I found the old test directory to be somewhat long to name, and I don't think it's necessary to put an experimental implementation's tests under an rfc which is closed.
r? fee1-dead
Breaking this out of #131985 so that PR doesn't touch 300 files.
shave 150ms off bootstrap
This starts `git` commands inside `GitInfo`and the submodule updates in parallel. Git should already perform internal locking in cases where it needs to serialize a modification.
```
OLD
Benchmark #1: ./x check core
Time (mean ± σ): 608.7 ms ± 4.4 ms [User: 368.3 ms, System: 455.1 ms]
Range (min … max): 602.3 ms … 618.8 ms 10 runs
NEW
Benchmark #1: ./x check core
Time (mean ± σ): 462.8 ms ± 2.6 ms [User: 350.2 ms, System: 485.1 ms]
Range (min … max): 457.5 ms … 465.6 ms 10 runs
```
This should help with the rust-analyzer setup which issues many individual `./x check` calls. There's more that could be done but these were the lowest-hanging fruits that I saw.
Always specify `llvm_abiname` for RISC-V targets
For RISC-V targets, when `llvm_abiname` is not specified LLVM will infer the ABI from the target features, causing #116344 to occur. This PR adds the correct `llvm_abiname` to all RISC-V targets where it is missing (which are all soft-float targets), and adds a test to prevent future RISC-V targets from accidentally omitting `llvm_abiname`. The only affect of this PR is that `-Ctarget-feature=+f` (or similar) will no longer affect the ABI on the modified targets.
<!-- homu-ignore:start -->
r? `@RalfJung`
<!--- homu-ignore:end -->
rust_for_linux: -Zregparm=<N> commandline flag for X86 (#116972)
Command line flag `-Zregparm=<N>` for X86 (32-bit) for rust-for-linux: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116972
Implemented in the similar way as fastcall/vectorcall support (args are marked InReg if fit).
make unsupported_calling_conventions a hard error
This has been a future-compat lint (not shown in dependencies) since Rust 1.55, released 3 years ago. Hopefully that was enough time so this can be made a hard error now. Given that long timeframe, I think it's justified to skip the "show in dependencies" stage. There were [not many crates hitting this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86231#issuecomment-866300943) even when the lint was originally added.
This should get cratered, and I assume then it needs a t-compiler FCP. (t-compiler because this looks entirely like an implementation oversight -- for the vast majority of ABIs, we already have a hard error, but some were initially missed, and we are finally fixing that.)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87678
Dont consider predicates that may hold as impossible in `is_impossible_associated_item`
Use infer vars to account for ambiguities when considering if methods are impossible to instantiate for a given self type. Also while we're at it, let's use the new trait solver instead of `evaluate` since this is used in rustdoc.
r? lcnr
Fixes#131839
(ci) Update macOS Xcode to 15
This updates the macOS builders to Xcode 15. The aarch64 images will be removing Xcode 14 and 16 very soon (https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/10703), so we will need to make the switch to continue operating. The linked issue also documents GitHub's new policy for how they will be updating Xcode in the future. Also worth being aware of is the future plans for x86 runners documented in https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/9255 and https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/10686, which will impact our future upgrade behaviors.
I decided to also update the Xcode in the x86_64 runners, even though they are not being removed. It felt better to me to have all macOS runners on the same (major) version of Xcode. However, note that the x86_64 runners do not have the latest version of 15 (15.4), so I left them at 15.2 (which is currently the default Xcode of the runner).
Xcode 15 was previously causing problems (see #121058) which seem to be resolved now. `@bjorn3` fixed the `invalid r_symbolnum` issue with cranelift. The issue with clang failing to link seems to be fixed, possibly by the update of the pre-built LLVM from 14 to llvm 15 in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124850, or an update in our source version of LLVM. I have run some try builds and at least LLVM seems to build (I did not run any tests).
Closes#121058
feat: better completions for extern blcoks
This PR refactors `add_keywords` (making it much clearer!) and enhances completion for `extern` blocks.
It is recommended to reviewing the changes in order of the commits:
- The first commit (f3c4dde0a4917a2bac98605cc045eecfb4d69872) doesn’t change any logic but refactors parts of the `add_keywords` function and adds detailed comments.
- The second commit (5dcc1ab649bf8a49cadf006d620871b12f093a2f) improves completion for `extern` kw and extern blocks.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #130350 (stabilize Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance APIs)
- #131737 (linkchecker: add a reminder on broken links to add new/renamed pages to `SUMMARY.md` for mdBooks)
- #131991 (test: Add test for trait in FQS cast, issue #98565)
- #131997 (Make `rustc_abi` compile on stable again)
- #131999 (Improve test coverage for `unit_bindings` lint)
- #132001 (fix coherence error for very large tuples™)
- #132003 (update ABI compatibility docs for new option-like rules)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
update ABI compatibility docs for new option-like rules
Documents the rules decided [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130628#issuecomment-2402761599) for our ABI compatibility rules.
Long-term this should be moved to the reference, but for now this is what we got.
Cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/opsem`
Improve test coverage for `unit_bindings` lint
Follow-up to #112380, apparently at the time I didn't add much of any test coverage outside of just "generally works as intended on the test suites and in the crater run".
r? compiler
test: Add test for trait in FQS cast, issue #98565Closes#98565 by adding a test to check for diagnostics when the built-in type `str` is used in a cast where a trait is expected.
linkchecker: add a reminder on broken links to add new/renamed pages to `SUMMARY.md` for mdBooks
I spent an embarrassingly long amount of time trying to figure out why CI was failing for a PR adding new platform support docs. In turns out it's because the PR author didn't register the new page in `SUMMARY.md`. I completely forgot about it too, and was reading linkchecker source because I thought it was a bug in linkchecker.
So this PR adds a note to modify `SUMMARY.md` when adding new pages in a mdBook.
E.g.
```
# Adding a new `meow` target but forgor to register the page in `SUMMARY.md`
rustc\platform-support.html:183: broken link - `rustc\platform-support\meow.html`
rustc\print.html:9730: broken link - `rustc\platform-support\meow.html`
checked links in: 19.1s
number of HTML files scanned: 43588
number of HTML redirects found: 13735
number of links checked: 3145951
number of links ignored due to external: 156244
number of links ignored due to exceptions: 9
number of intra doc links ignored: 8
errors found: 2
NOTE: if you are adding or renaming a markdown file in a mdBook, don't forget to register the page in SUMMARY.md
found some broken links
```
stabilize Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance APIs
Given that [RFC 3559](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3559-rust-has-provenance.html) has been accepted, t-lang has approved the concept of provenance to exist in the language. So I think it's time that we stabilize the strict provenance and exposed provenance APIs, and discuss provenance explicitly in the docs:
```rust
// core::ptr
pub const fn without_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub const fn dangling<T>() -> *const T;
pub const fn without_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
pub const fn dangling_mut<T>() -> *mut T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance<T>(addr: usize) -> *const T;
pub fn with_exposed_provenance_mut<T>(addr: usize) -> *mut T;
impl<T: ?Sized> *const T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> *mut T {
pub fn addr(self) -> usize;
pub fn expose_provenance(self) -> usize;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: usize) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(usize) -> usize) -> Self;
}
impl<T: ?Sized> NonNull<T> {
pub fn addr(self) -> NonZero<usize>;
pub fn with_addr(self, addr: NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
pub fn map_addr(self, f: impl FnOnce(NonZero<usize>) -> NonZero<usize>) -> Self;
}
```
I also did a pass over the docs to adjust them, because this is no longer an "experiment". The `ptr` docs now discuss the concept of provenance in general, and then they go into the two families of APIs for dealing with provenance: Strict Provenance and Exposed Provenance. I removed the discussion of how pointers also have an associated "address space" -- that is not actually tracked in the pointer value, it is tracked in the type, so IMO it just distracts from the core point of provenance. I also adjusted the docs for `with_exposed_provenance` to make it clear that we cannot guarantee much about this function, it's all best-effort.
There are two unstable lints associated with the strict_provenance feature gate; I moved them to a new [strict_provenance_lints](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130351) feature since I didn't want this PR to have an even bigger FCP. ;)
`@rust-lang/opsem` Would be great to get some feedback on the docs here. :)
Nominating for `@rust-lang/libs-api.`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95228.
[FCP comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130350#issuecomment-2395114536)
