Move naked function ABI check to its own lint
This check was previously categorized under the lint named
`UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`. That lint is future incompatible and will
be turned into an error in a future release. However, as defined in the
Constrained Naked Functions RFC, this check should only be a warning.
This is because it is possible for a naked function to be implemented in
such a way that it does not break even the undefined ABI. For example, a
`jmp` to a `const`.
Therefore, this patch defines a new lint named
`UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI` which contains just this single check.
Unlike `UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`, `UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI`
will not be converted to an error in the future.
rust-lang/rfcs#2774rust-lang/rfcs#2972
In most calling conventions, accessing function parameters may require
stack access. However, naked functions have no assembly prelude to set
up stack access. This is why naked functions may only contain a single
`asm!()` block. All parameter access is done inside the `asm!()` block,
so we cannot validate the liveness of the input parameters. Therefore,
we should disable the lint for naked functions.
rust-lang/rfcs#2774rust-lang/rfcs#2972
This check was previously categorized under the lint named
`UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`. That lint is future incompatible and will
be turned into an error in a future release. However, as defined in the
Constrained Naked Functions RFC, this check should only be a warning.
This is because it is possible for a naked function to be implemented in
such a way that it does not break even the undefined ABI. For example, a
`jmp` to a `const`.
Therefore, this patch defines a new lint named
`UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI` which contains just this single check.
Unlike `UNSUPPORTED_NAKED_FUNCTIONS`, `UNDEFINED_NAKED_FUNCTION_ABI`
will not be converted to an error in the future.
rust-lang/rfcs#2774rust-lang/rfcs#2972
rustc: Replace `HirId`s with `LocalDefId`s in `AccessLevels` tables
and passes using those tables - primarily privacy checking, stability checking and dead code checking.
All these passes work with definitions rather than with arbitrary HIR nodes.
r? `@cjgillot`
cc `@lambinoo` (#87487)
rfc3052 followup: Remove authors field from Cargo manifests
Since RFC 3052 soft deprecated the authors field, hiding it from
crates.io, docs.rs, and making Cargo not add it by default, and it is
not generally up to date/useful information for contributors, we may as well
remove it from crates in this repo.
Since RFC 3052 soft deprecated the authors field anyway, hiding it from
crates.io, docs.rs, and making Cargo not add it by default, and it is
not generally up to date/useful information, we should remove it from
crates in this repo.
Checking that function is const if marked with rustc_const_unstable
Fixes#69630
This one is still missing tests to check the behavior but I checked by hand and it seemed to work.
I would not mind some direction for writing those unit tests!
Use diagnostic items instead of lang items for rfc2229 migrations
This PR removes the `Send`, `UnwindSafe` and `RefUnwindSafe` lang items introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/84730, and uses diagnostic items instead to check for `Send`, `UnwindSafe` and `RefUnwindSafe` traits for RFC2229 migrations.
r? ```@nikomatsakis```
remove trailing newline
fix: test with attribute but missing const
Update compiler/rustc_passes/src/stability.rs
Co-authored-by: Léo Lanteri Thauvin <leseulartichaut@gmail.com>
Add test for extern functions
fix: using span_help instead of span_suggestion
add test for some ABIs + fmt fix
Update compiler/rustc_passes/src/stability.rs
Co-authored-by: Léo Lanteri Thauvin <leseulartichaut@gmail.com>
Refractor and add test for `impl const`
Add test to make sure no output + cleanup condition
-----------------------------
remove stdcall test, failing CI test
C abi is already tested in this, so it is not that useful to test another one.
The tested code is blind to which specific ABI for now, as long as it's not an intrinsic one
deny using default function in impl const Trait
Fixes#79450.
I don't know if my implementation is correct:
- The check is in `rustc_passes::check_const`, should I put it somewhere else instead?
- Is my approach (to checking the impl) optimal? It works for the current tests, but it might have some issues or there might be a better way of doing this.
Fix ICE when `main` is declared in an `extern` block
Changes in #84401 to implement `imported_main` changed how the crate entry point is found, and a declared `main` in an `extern` block was detected erroneously. This was causing the ICE described in #86110.
This PR adds a check for this case and emits an error instead. Previously a `main` declaration in an `extern` block was not detected as an entry point at all, so emitting an error shouldn't break anything that worked previously. In 1.52.1 stable this is demonstrated, with a `` `main` function not found`` error.
Fixes#86110
Remove unused dependencies from compiler crates
Various compiler crates have dependencies that they don't appear to use. I used some scripting to detect such dependencies, filtered them based on some manual review, and removed those that do indeed appear to be entirely unused.
