Temporarily prohibit proc macro attributes placed after derives
... and also proc macro attributes used together with `#[test]`/`#[bench]`.
Addresses item 6 from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/50911#issuecomment-411605393.
The end goal is straightforward predictable left-to-right expansion order for attributes.
Right now derives are expanded last regardless of their relative ordering with macro attributes and right now it's simpler to temporarily prohibit macro attributes placed after derives than changing the expansion order.
I'm not sure whether the new beta is already released or not, but if it's released, then this patch needs to be backported, so the solution needs to be minimal.
How to fix broken code (derives):
- Move macro attributes above derives. This won't change expansion order, they are expanded before derives anyway.
Using attribute macros on same items with `#[test]` and `#[bench]` is prohibited for similar expansion order reasons, but this one is going to be reverted much sooner than restrictions on derives.
How to fix broken code (test/bench):
- Enable `#![feature(plugin)]` (don't ask why).
r? @ghost
This is mainly intended for `rustc` developers who want to see a
diagnostic in its original context in the control flow. Two uses
cases for that are:
* `-Z treat-err-as-bug` which then allows extraction of a stack-trace to the origin of the error
(a case that is so important that we make that flag imply this one, effectively).
* `RUST_LOG=... rustc`, in which case it is often useful to see the logging statements that
occurred immediately prior to the point where the diagnostic was signalled.
Drive-by: Added some documentation pointing future devs at
HandlerFlags, and documented the fields of `HandlerFlags` itself.
Note it requires MIR-borrowck to be enabled to actually do anything.
Note also that it implicitly turns off our AST-based check for
mutation in guards.
Make rustc::middle::region::Scope's fields public
This PR makes the following changes to `rustc::middle::region::Scope`:
- [x] Makes `region::Scope`'s fields public
- [x] Removes the `impl Scope` block with constructors (as per [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/54032#discussion_r216618208))
- [x] Updates call sites throughout the compiler
Closes#54122.
miri engine: keep around some information for dead allocations
We use it to test if a dangling ptr is aligned and non-NULL. This makes some code pass that should pass (writing a ZST to a properly aligned dangling pointer), and makes some code fail that should fail (writing a ZST to a pointer obtained via pointer arithmetic from a real location, but ouf-of-bounds -- that pointer could be NULL, so we cannot allow writing to it).
CTFE does not allow these operations; tests are added to miri with https://github.com/solson/miri/pull/453.
Improve output if no_lookup_host_duplicates test fails
If the test fails, output the offending addresses and a helpful error message.
Also slightly improve legibility of the preceding line that puts the addresses
into a HashMap.
resolve: Do not error on access to proc macros imported with `#[macro_use]`
This error is artificial, but previously, when `#[macro_use] extern crate x;` was stable, but non-derive proc macros were not, it worked like kind of a feature gate. Now both features are stable, so the error is no longer necessary.
This PR simplifies how `#[macro_use] extern crate x;` works - it takes all items from macro namespace of `x`'s root and puts them into macro prelude from which they all can now be accessed.
fix some uses of pointer intrinsics with invalid pointers
[Found by miri](https://github.com/solson/miri/pull/446):
* `Vec::into_iter` calls `ptr::read` (and the underlying `copy_nonoverlapping`) with an unaligned pointer to a ZST. [According to LLVM devs](https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38583), this is UB because it contradicts the metadata we are attaching to that pointer.
* `HashMap` creation calls `ptr:.write_bytes` on a NULL pointer with a count of 0. This is likely not currently UB *currently*, but it violates the rules we are setting in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53783, and we might want to exploit those rules later (e.g. with more `nonnull` attributes for LLVM).
Probably what `HashMap` really should do is use `NonNull::dangling()` instead of 0 for the empty case, but that would require a more careful analysis of the code.
It seems like ideally, we should do a review of usage of such intrinsics all over libstd to ensure that they use valid pointers even when the size is 0. Is it worth opening an issue for that?
