This approach is, roughly, based on how Discourse does it.
It came up while discussing some other possible sidebar changes,
as a design that made rapid scanning easier while avoiding the
inherent trade-offs in summarizing.
Added "copy" to Debug fmt for copy operands
In MIR's debug mode (--emit mir) the printing for Operands is slightly inconsistent.
The RValues - values on the right side of an Assign - are usually printed with their Operand when they are Places.
Example:
_2 = move _3
But for arguments, the operand is omitted.
_2 = _1
I propose a change be made, to display the place with the operand.
_2 = copy _1
Move and copy have different semantics, meaning this difference is important and helpful to the user. It also adds consistency to the pretty printing.
-- EDIT --
Consider this example Rust program and its MIR output with the **updated pretty printer.**
This was generated with the arguments --emit mir --crate-type lib -Zmir-opt-level=0 (Otherwise, it's optimised away since it's a junk program).
```rust
fn main(foo: i32) {
let v = 10;
if v == 20 {
foo;
}
else {
v;
}
}
```
```MIR
// WARNING: This output format is intended for human consumers only
// and is subject to change without notice. Knock yourself out.
fn main(_1: i32) -> () {
debug foo => _1;
let mut _0: ();
let _2: i32;
let mut _3: bool;
let mut _4: i32;
let _5: i32;
let _6: i32;
scope 1 {
debug v => _2;
}
bb0: {
StorageLive(_2);
_2 = const 10_i32;
StorageLive(_3);
StorageLive(_4);
_4 = copy _2;
_3 = Eq(move _4, const 20_i32);
switchInt(move _3) -> [0: bb2, otherwise: bb1];
}
bb1: {
StorageDead(_4);
StorageLive(_5);
_5 = copy _1;
StorageDead(_5);
_0 = const ();
goto -> bb3;
}
bb2: {
StorageDead(_4);
StorageLive(_6);
_6 = copy _2;
StorageDead(_6);
_0 = const ();
goto -> bb3;
}
bb3: {
StorageDead(_3);
StorageDead(_2);
return;
}
}
```
In this example program, we can see that when we move a place, it is preceded by "move". e.g. ``` _3 = Eq(move _4, const 20_i32);```. However, when we copy a place such as ```_5 = _1;```, it is not preceded by the operand in the original printout. I propose to change the print to include the copy ```_5 = copy _1``` as in this example.
Regarding the arguments part. When I originally submitted this PR, I was under the impression this only affected the print for arguments to a function, but actually, it affects anything that uses a copy. This is preferable anyway with regard to consistency. The PR is about making ```copy``` explicit.
Trigger [`string_slice`] if expression is reference to `&str`
Close#12708
changelog: [`string_slice`]: trigger lint if expression is reference to `&str`
fix false positive in explicit_iter_loop with msrv
close#13184
This PR fix false positive in explicit_iter_loop when msrv < 1.80
changelog: fix false positive in explicit_iter_loop when msrv < 1.80
Prevent double panic in query system, improve diagnostics
I stumbled upon a double-panic in the query system while working on something else (#129102), which hid the real error cause for what I was debugging. This PR remedies that, so unwinding should be able to present more errors. It shouldn't really be relevant for code that doesn't ICE.
safe transmute: check lifetimes
Modifies `BikeshedIntrinsicFrom` to forbid lifetime extensions on references. This static check can be opted out of with the `Assume::lifetimes` flag.
Fixes#129097
Tracking Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99571
r? `@compiler-errors`
Before the workspace split, the library was covered by the weekly `cargo
update` cron job. Now that the library has its own workspace, it doesn't
get these updates.
Add `library/Cargo.toml` to the job so updates happen again.
Delete debuginfo test suite infra for gdb without Rust support and lldb with Rust support
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128953
I also deleted all the `min-lldb-version: 310` comments, because the oldest compatible distro I can find is Ubuntu 16.04 which ships lldb 3.8, though of course the package that the Ubuntu maintainers put together for that is broken.
Rocky Linux 8 amusingly ships lldb 17, even though it has a similar glibc and kernel version.
This PR is multiple highly mechanical changes. Some of the commits were created by just running `sed`. You may find it easier to review each commit separately.
Switch to using the v2 resolver in most workspaces
Pinning the resolver to v1 was done in 5abff3753a ("Explicit set workspace.resolver ...") in order to suppress warnings. Since there is no specific reason not to use the new resolver and since it fixes issues, change to `resolver = "2"` everywhere except library.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #127679 (Stabilize `raw_ref_op` (RFC 2582))
- #128084 (Suggest adding Result return type for associated method in E0277.)
- #128628 (When deduplicating unreachable blocks, erase the source information.)
- #128902 (doc: std::env::var: Returns None for names with '=' or NUL byte)
- #129048 (Update `crosstool-ng` for loongarch64)
- #129116 (Include a copy of `compiler-rt` source in the `download-ci-llvm` tarball)
- #129208 (Fix order of normalization and recursion in const folding.)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Fix order of normalization and recursion in const folding.
Fixes#126831.
Without this patch, type normalization is not always idempotent, which leads to all sorts of bugs in places that assume that normalizing a normalized type does nothing.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/95174
r? BoxyUwU
Include a copy of `compiler-rt` source in the `download-ci-llvm` tarball
This will make it possible to experiment with allowing `download-ci-llvm` builds to build `library/profiler_builtins`, without needing to check out the `src/llvm-project` submodule.
By itself, this PR just adds the files to the tarball, but doesn't actually do anything with them. The idea is that once this is merged, it will then be much easier to proceed with work on the necessary bootstrap changes (using the real downloaded tarball), without having to rig up weird hacks to simulate downloading a modified tarball.
---
Adding these files to the compressed tarballs appears to increase its size by a negligible amount (<1 MB out of 400/800+ MB).
The uncompressed size is about 14 MB (out of 2+ GB for the whole tarball).
(The excluded test files would have been another 35 MB.)
Update `crosstool-ng` for loongarch64
The current cross-compilation toolchain for the LoongArch64 target consists of GCC 13.2.0, Binutils 2.40, and Glibc 2.36. However, Binutils 2.40 has known issues that in broken binaries without any error reports:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121289
- https://github.com/cross-rs/cross/issues/1538
This patch upgrades the cross-compilation toolchain for the LoongArch64 target to resolve these issues.
- GCC: 13.2.0 -> 14.2.0
- Binutils: 2.40 -> 2.42
The new binaries remain compatible with the existing GCC 13.2.0/Glibc 2.36 distribution, and no issues have been identified.
try-job: dist-loongarch64-linux
doc: std::env::var: Returns None for names with '=' or NUL byte
The documentation incorrectly stated that std::env::var could return an error for variable names containing '=' or the NUL byte. Copy the correct documentation from var_os.
var_os was fixed in Commit 8a7a665, Pull Request #109894, which closed Issue #109893.
This documentation was incorrectly added in commit f2c0f292, which replaced a panic in var_os by returning None, but documented the change as "May error if ...".
Reference the specific error values and link to them.
When deduplicating unreachable blocks, erase the source information.
After deduplication the block conceptually belongs to multiple locations in the source. Although these blocks are unreachable, in #123341 we did come across a real side effect, an unreachable block that survives into the compiled code can cause a debugger to set a breakpoint on the wrong instruction. Erasing the source information ensures that a debugger will never be misled into thinking that the unreachable block is worth setting a breakpoint on, especially after #128627.
Technically we don't need to erase the source information if all the deduplicated blocks have identical source information, but tracking that seems like more effort than it's worth.
I'll let njn redirect this one too. r? `@nnethercote`
Suggest adding Result return type for associated method in E0277.
Recommit #126515 because I messed up during rebase,
Suggest adding Result return type for associated method in E0277.
For following:
```rust
struct A;
impl A {
fn test4(&self) {
let mut _file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
//~^ ERROR the `?` operator can only be used in a method
}
```
Suggest:
```rust
impl A {
fn test4(&self) -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
let mut _file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
//~^ ERROR the `?` operator can only be used in a method
Ok(())
}
}
```
For #125997
r? `@cjgillot`
Stabilize `raw_ref_op` (RFC 2582)
This stabilizes the syntax `&raw const $expr` and `&raw mut $expr`. It has existed unstably for ~4 years now, and has been exposed on stable via the `addr_of` and `addr_of_mut` macros since Rust 1.51 (released more than 3 years ago). I think it has become clear that these operations are here to stay. So it is about time we give them proper primitive syntax. This has two advantages over the macro:
- Being macros, `addr_of`/`addr_of_mut` could in theory do arbitrary magic with the expression on which they work. The only "magic" they actually do is using the argument as a place expression rather than as a value expression. Place expressions are already a subtle topic and poorly understood by many programmers; having this hidden behind a macro using unstable language features makes this even worse. Conversely, people do have an idea of what happens below `&`/`&mut`, so we can make the subtle topic a lot more approachable by connecting to existing intuition.
- The name `addr_of` is quite unfortunate from today's perspective, given that we have accepted provenance as a reality, which means that a pointer is *not* just an address. Strict provenance has a method, `addr`, which extracts the address of a pointer; using the term `addr` in two different ways is quite unfortunate. That's why this PR soft-deprecates `addr_of` -- we will wait a long time before actually showing any warning here, but we should start telling people that the "addr" part of this name is somewhat misleading, and `&raw` avoids that potential confusion.
In summary, this syntax improves developers' ability to conceptualize the operational semantics of Rust, while making a fundamental operation frequently used in unsafe code feel properly built in.
Possible questions to consider, based on the RFC and [this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64490#issuecomment-1163802912) great summary by `@CAD97:`
- Some questions are entirely about the semantics. The semantics are the same as with the macros so I don't think this should have any impact on this syntax PR. Still, for completeness' sake:
- Should `&raw const *mut_ref` give a read-only pointer?
- Tracked at: https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/257
- I think ideally the answer is "no". Stacked Borrows says that pointer is read-only, but Tree Borrows says it is mutable.
- What exactly does `&raw const (*ptr).field` require? Answered in [the reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html): the arithmetic to compute the field offset follows the rules of `ptr::offset`, making it UB if it goes out-of-bounds. Making this a safe operation (using `wrapping_offset` rules) is considered too much of a loss for alias analysis.
- Choose a different syntax? I don't want to re-litigate the RFC. The only credible alternative that has been proposed is `&raw $place` instead of `&raw const $place`, which (IIUC) could be achieved by making `raw` a contextual keyword in a new edition. The type is named `*const T`, so the explicit `const` is consistent in that regard. `&raw expr` lacks the explicit indication of immutability. However, `&raw const expr` is quite a but longer than `addr_of!(expr)`.
- Shouldn't we have a completely new, better raw pointer type instead? Yes we all want to see that happen -- but I don't think we should block stabilization on that, given that such a nicer type is not on the horizon currently and given the issues with `addr_of!` mentioned above. (If we keep the `&raw $place` syntax free for this, we could use it in the future for that new type.)
- What about the lint the RFC talked about? It hasn't been implemented yet. Given that the problematic code is UB with or without this stabilization, I don't think the lack of the lint should block stabilization.
- I created an issue to track adding it: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127724
- Other points from the "future possibilites of the RFC
- "Syntactic sugar" extension: this has not been implemented. I'd argue this is too confusing, we should stick to what the RFC suggested and if we want to do anything about such expressions, add the lint.
- Encouraging / requiring `&raw` in situations where references are often/definitely incorrect: this has been / is being implemented. On packed fields this already is a hard error, and for `static mut` a lint suggesting raw pointers is being rolled out.
- Lowering of casts: this has been implemented. (It's also an invisible implementation detail.)
- `offsetof` woes: we now have native `offset_of` so this is not relevant any more.
To be done before landing:
- [x] Suppress `unused_parens` lint around `&raw {const|mut}` expressions
- See bottom of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127679#issuecomment-2264073752 for rationale
- Implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128782
- [ ] Update the Reference.
- https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1567
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64490
cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/opsem`
try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: test-various
try-job: dist-various-1
try-job: armhf-gnu
try-job: aarch64-apple
`pulldown-cmark` has slightly different behavior between 0.11.0 and
0.11.2, causing one of the `unportable-markdown` tests to no longer emit
an error. Per [1], remove the error annotation and bless the output.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128722#issuecomment-2295522292
