Use `preserve_mostcc` for `extern "rust-cold"`
As experimentation in #115242 has shown looks better than `coldcc`. Notably, clang exposes `preserve_most` (https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#preserve-most) but not `cold`, so this change should put us on a better-supported path.
And *don't* use a different convention for cold on Windows, because that actually ends up making things worse. (See comment in the code.)
cc tracking issue #97544
miri ABI compatibility check: accept u32 and i32
If only the sign differs, then surely these types are compatible. (We do still check that `arg_ext` is the same, just in case.)
Also I made it so that the ABI check must *imply* that size and alignment are the same, but it doesn't actively check that itself. With how crazy ABI constraints get, having equal size and align really shouldn't be used as a signal for anything I think...
Make RPITITs capture all in-scope lifetimes
Much like #114616, this implements the lang team decision from this T-lang meeting on [opaque captures strategy moving forward](https://hackmd.io/sFaSIMJOQcuwCdnUvCxtuQ?view). This will be RFC'd soon, but given that RPITITs are a nightly feature, this shouldn't necessarily be blocked on that.
We unconditionally capture all lifetimes in RPITITs -- impl is not as simple as #114616, since we still need to duplicate RPIT lifetimes to make sure we reify any late-bound lifetimes in scope.
Closes#112194
don't use SnapshotVec in Graph implementation, as it looks unused; use Vec instead
`Graph` don't use `SnapshotVec` methods, so use simple `Vec` instead?
More precisely detect cycle errors from type_of on opaque
Not sure if this still needs work. Just putting it up for initial impressions, since it seems that a few people are frustrated with the increased error verbosity due to #113320.
Essentially we introduce a new sub-query for `type_of` specifically for opaques which returns a value that is able to distinguish "has errors" from "due to cycle recovery".
Fixes#115188
r? `@oli-obk`
codegen_llvm/llvm_type: avoid matching on the Rust type
This `match` is highly suspicious. Looking at `scalar_llvm_type_at` I think it makes no difference. But if it were to make a difference that would be a huge problem, since it doesn't look through `repr(transparent)`!
Cc `@eddyb` `@bjorn3`
Avoid redirecting the curl output directly to the stdout. This alteration
affects the integrity of the file during the retry process, as it also redirects
the logs from the retries. Consequently, this leads to the bootstrap process failing
because of an invalid checksum.
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Avoid duplicate `large_assignments` lints
By checking for overlapping spans.
This PR does the "reduce noisiness" task in #83518.
r? `@oli-obk` who added E-mentor and E-help-wanted and wrote the initial code.
(The fix itself is in dc82736677. The two commits before that are just small refactorings.)
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #109660 (Document that SystemTime does not count leap seconds)
- #114238 (Fix implementation of `Duration::checked_div`)
- #114512 (std/tests: disable ancillary tests on freebsd since the feature itsel…)
- #114919 (style-guide: Add guidance for defining formatting for specific macros)
- #115278 (tell people what to do when removing an error code)
- #115280 (avoid triple-backtrace due to panic-during-cleanup)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
tell people what to do when removing an error code
Currently tidy and CI send developers on a wild goose chase:
- you edit the code
- CI/tidy tells you that an error code is gone, so you remove it from the list
- CI/tidy tells you that the markdown file is stale, so you remove that as well
- CI (but not tidy) tells you not to remove an error description and copy what E0001 does
Let's be nice to people and directly tell them what to do rather than making them follow misleading breadcrumbs.
r? ``@GuillaumeGomez``
Fix implementation of `Duration::checked_div`
I ran across this while running some sanity checks on `time`. Quickcheck immediately found a bug, and as I'd modified the code from `std` I knew there was a bug here as well.
tl;dr this code fails ([playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=1189a3efcdfc192c27d6d87815359353))
```rust
use std::time::Duration;
fn main() {
assert_eq!(
Duration::new(1, 1).checked_div(7),
Some(Duration::new(0, 142_857_143)),
);
}
```
The existing code determines that 1/7 = 0 (seconds), 1/7 = 0 (nanoseconds), 1 billion / 7 = 142,857,142 (extra nanoseconds). The billion comes from multiplying the remainder of the seconds (1) by the number of nanoseconds in a second. However, **this wrongly ignores any remaining nanoseconds**. This PR takes that into consideration, adds a test, and also changes the roundabout way of calculating the remainder into directly computing it.
Note: This is _not_ a rounding error. This result divides evenly.
`@rustbot` label +A-time +C-bug +S-waiting-on-reviewer +T-libs
Document that SystemTime does not count leap seconds
Fixes#77994
This may not be entirely uncontroversial. I know that `@Ekleog` is going to disagree. However, in support of this docs change:
This documents the current behaviour. The alternative would be to plan to *change* the behaviour.
There are many programs which need to get a POSIX time (a `time_t`). Right now, `duration_since(UNIX_EPOCH)` is the only facility in std that does that. So, that is what programs use. Changing the behaviour would break[1] all of those programs. We would need to define a new API that can be used to get a POSIX time, and get everyone to use it. This seems highly unpalatable.
And, even if we wanted to do that, time with leap seconds is a lot less easy to work with. We would need to arrange to have a leap seconds table available to `std` somehow, and make sure that it was kept up to date. Currently we don't offer to do that for timezone data, which has similar needs. There are other complications. So it seems it would be awkwarrd to *implement* a facility that provides time including leap seconds, and the resulting value would be hard for applications to work with.
Therefore, I think it's clear that we don't want to plan to ever change `SystemTime`. We should plan to keep it the way it is. Providing TAI (for example) should be left to external crates, or additional APIs we may add in the future.
For more discussion see #77994 and in particular `@fanf2's` https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/77994#issuecomment-1409448174
[1] Of course, by "break" we really only mean *future* breakage in the case where there is, in fact, ever another leap second. There may well not be: they are in the process of being abolished (although this is of course being contested). But if we decide that `SystemTime::now().duraton_since(UNIX_EPOCH)` counts leap seconds, it would start to return `Durations`s that are 27s different to the current answers. That's clearly unacceptable. And we can hardly change `UNIX_EPOCH` by 27s.
Load include_bytes! directly into an Lrc
This PR deletes an innocent-looking `.into()` that was converting from a `Vec<u8>` to `Lrc<[u8]>`. This has significant runtime and memory overhead when using `include_bytes!` to pull in a large binary file.
