Use line numbers relative to the function in mir-opt tests
As shown in #99770, the line numbers can be a big source of needless and confusing diffs. This PR adds a new flag `-Zmir-pretty-relative-line-numbers` to make them relative to the function declaration, which avoids most needless diffs from attribute changes.
`@JakobDegen` told me that there has been a zulip conversation about disabling line numbers with mixed opinions, so I'd like to get some feedback here, for this hopefully better solution.
r? rust-lang/wg-mir-opt
Sync `rust-analyzer`, add `rust-analyzer-proc-macro-srv` binary to Rustc component
As discussed earlier with `@jyn514` and `@pietroalbini,` I'm also going to use this PR to have `dist::Rustc` build the `rust-analyzer-proc-macro-srv` binary introduced in:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/pull/12871
mem::uninitialized: mitigate many incorrect uses of this function
Alternative to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98966: fill memory with `0x01` rather than leaving it uninit. This is definitely bitewise valid for all `bool` and nonnull types, and also those `Option<&T>` that we started putting `noundef` on. However it is still invalid for `char` and some enums, and on references the `dereferenceable` attribute is still violated, so the generated LLVM IR still has UB -- but in fewer cases, and `dereferenceable` is hopefully less likely to cause problems than clearly incorrect range annotations.
This can make using `mem::uninitialized` a lot slower, but that function has been deprecated for years and we keep telling everyone to move to `MaybeUninit` because it is basically impossible to use `mem::uninitialized` correctly. For the cases where that hasn't helped (and all the old code out there that nobody will ever update), we can at least mitigate the effect of using this API. Note that this is *not* in any way a stable guarantee -- it is still UB to call `mem::uninitialized::<bool>()`, and Miri will call it out as such.
This is somewhat similar to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87032, which proposed to make `uninitialized` return a buffer filled with 0x00. However
- That PR also proposed to reduce the situations in which we panic, which I don't think we should do at this time.
- The 0x01 bit pattern means that nonnull requirements are satisfied, which (due to references) is the most common validity invariant.
`@5225225` I hope I am using `cfg(sanitize)` the right way; I was not sure for which ones to test here.
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66151
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87675
Add some comments to the docs issue template to clarify
Newcomers may not know that some docs have their own repositories (e.g. the book, the reference), or that the documentation and rustdoc are different.
Actually, this template was used to report an issue related to the book: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99699
This adds some comments to clarify the above things. I'm not sure if the current wording is the best, any suggestion would be helpful!
Signed-off-by: Yuki Okushi <jtitor@2k36.org>
lint: add bad opt access internal lint
Prompted by [Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/sess.2Ecrate_types.28.29.20vs.20sess.2Eopts.2Ecrate_types/near/290682847).
Some command-line options accessible through `sess.opts` are best accessed through wrapper functions on `Session`, `TyCtxt` or otherwise, rather than through field access on the option struct in the `Session`.
Adds a new lint which triggers on those options that should be accessed through a wrapper function so that this is prohibited. Options are annotated with a new attribute `rustc_lint_opt_deny_field_access` which can specify the error message (i.e. "use this other function instead") to be emitted.
A simpler alternative would be to simply rename the options in the option type so that it is clear they should not be used, however this doesn't prevent uses, just discourages them. Another alternative would be to make the option fields private, and adding accessor functions on the option types, however the wrapper functions sometimes rely on additional state from `Session` or `TyCtxt` which wouldn't be available in an function on the option type, so the accessor would simply make the field available and its use would be discouraged too.
**Leave a comment if there's an option I should add this to.**
Deeply deny fn and raw ptrs in const generics
I think this is right -- just because we wrap a fn ptr in a wrapper type does not mean we should allow it in a const parameter.
We now reject both of these in the same way:
```
#![feature(adt_const_params)]
#[derive(Eq, PartialEq)]
struct Wrapper();
fn foo<const W: Wrapper>() {}
fn foo2<const F: fn()>() {}
```
This does regress one test (`src/test/ui/consts/refs_check_const_eq-issue-88384.stderr`), but I'm not sure it should've passed in the first place.
cc: ``@b-naber`` who introduced that test^
fixes#99641
Fix slice::ChunksMut aliasing
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94231, details in that issue.
cc `@RalfJung`
This isn't done just yet, all the safety comments are placeholders. But otherwise, it seems to work.
I don't really like this approach though. There's a lot of unsafe code where there wasn't before, but as far as I can tell the only other way to uphold the aliasing requirement imposed by `__iterator_get_unchecked` is to use raw slices, which I think require the same amount of unsafe code. All that would do is tie the `len` and `ptr` fields together.
Oh I just looked and I'm pretty sure that `ChunksExactMut`, `RChunksMut`, and `RChunksExactMut` also need to be patched. Even more reason to put up a draft.
Remove let-chain close brace check.
#98633 added some checks to forbid let-expressions that aren't in a let chain. This check looks at the preceding token to determine if it is a valid let-chain position. One of those tokens it checks is the close brace `}`. However, to my understanding, it is not possible for a let chain to be preceded by a close brace. This PR removes the check to avoid any confusion.
This is a followup to the discussion at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98633#pullrequestreview-1030962803. It wasn't clear what issues the original PR ran into, but I have run the full set of CI tests and nothing failed. I also can't conceive of a situation where this would be possible. This doesn't reject any valid code, I'm just removing it to avoid confusion to anyone looking at this code in the future.
This builds `src/tools/rust-analyzer/crates/proc-macro-srv-cli` and
ships it as part of Rustc's dist component. This allows rust-analyzer's
proc macro support to work on all rustc versions (stable, beta and
nightly) starting now.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #99079 (Check that RPITs constrained by a recursive call in a closure are compatible)
- #99704 (Add `Self: ~const Trait` to traits with `#[const_trait]`)
- #99769 (Sync rustc_codegen_cranelift)
- #99783 (rustdoc: remove Clean trait impls for more items)
- #99789 (Refactor: use `pluralize!`)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Some command-line options accessible through `sess.opts` are best
accessed through wrapper functions on `Session`, `TyCtxt` or otherwise,
rather than through field access on the option struct in the `Session`.
Adds a new lint which triggers on those options that should be accessed
through a wrapper function so that this is prohibited. Options are
annotated with a new attribute `rustc_lint_opt_deny_field_access` which
can specify the error message (i.e. "use this other function instead")
to be emitted.
A simpler alternative would be to simply rename the options in the
option type so that it is clear they should not be used, however this
doesn't prevent uses, just discourages them. Another alternative would
be to make the option fields private, and adding accessor functions on
the option types, however the wrapper functions sometimes rely on
additional state from `Session` or `TyCtxt` which wouldn't be available
in an function on the option type, so the accessor would simply make the
field available and its use would be discouraged too.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
If an internal lint uses `typeck_results` or similar queries then that
can result in rustdoc checking code that it shouldn't (e.g. from other
platforms) and emit compilation errors.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
Sync rustc_codegen_cranelift
I did a large refactoring of the intrinsics module to remove the intrinsic_match macro which is not very clear to other people. This also enables rustfmt to run on this code. While I already did a sync yesterday, I am going to do another sync again to avoid potential conflicts as those will likely be painful to resolve.
r? ``@ghost``
``@rustbot`` label +A-codegen +A-cranelift +T-compiler
Check that RPITs constrained by a recursive call in a closure are compatible
Fixes#99073
Adapts a similar visitor pattern to `find_opaque_ty_constraints` (that we use to check TAITs), but with some changes:
0. Only walk the "OnlyBody" children, instead of all items in the RPIT's defining scope
1. Only walk through the body's children if we found a constraining usage
2. Don't actually do any inference, just do a comparison and error if they're mismatched
----
r? `@oli-obk` -- you know all this impl-trait stuff best... is this the right approach? I can explain the underlying issue better if you'd like, in case that might reveal a better solution. Not sure if it's possible to gather up the closure's defining usages of the RPIT while borrowck'ing the outer function, that might be a better place to put this check...
Add a brief comment explaining why the diagnostic migration lints aren't
included in the `rustc::internal` diagnostic group.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
Remove some redundant checks from BufReader
The implementation of BufReader contains a lot of redundant checks. While any one of these checks is not particularly expensive to execute, especially when taken together they dramatically inhibit LLVM's ability to make subsequent optimizations by confusing data flow increasing the code size of anything that uses BufReader.
In particular, these changes have a ~2x increase on the benchmark that this adds a `black_box` to. I'm adding that `black_box` here just in case LLVM gets clever enough to remove the reads entirely. Right now it can't, but these optimizations are really setting it up to do so.
We get this optimization by factoring all the actual buffer management and bounds-checking logic into a new module inside `bufreader` with a new `Buffer` type. This makes it much easier to ensure that we have correctly encapsulated the management of the region of the buffer that we have read bytes into, and it lets us provide a new faster way to do small reads. `Buffer::consume_with` lets a caller do a read from the buffer with a single bounds check, instead of the double-check that's required to use `buffer` + `consume`.
Unfortunately I'm not aware of a lot of open-source usage of `BufReader` in perf-critical environments. Some time ago I tweaked this code because I saw `BufReader` in a profile at work, and I contributed some benchmarks to the `bincode` crate which exercise `BufReader::buffer`. These changes appear to help those benchmarks at little, but all these sorts of benchmarks are kind of fragile so I'm wary of quoting anything specific.
Update cargo
5 commits in d8d30a75376f78bb0fabe3d28ee9d87aa8035309..85b500ccad8cd0b63995fd94a03ddd4b83f7905b
2022-07-19 13:59:17 +0000 to 2022-07-24 21:10:46 +0000
- Make the empty rustc-wrapper test more explicit. (rust-lang/cargo#10899)
- expand RUSTC_WRAPPER docs (rust-lang/cargo#10896)
- Stabilize Workspace Inheritance (rust-lang/cargo#10859)
- Fix typo in unstable docs: s/PROGJCT/PROJECT/ (rust-lang/cargo#10890)
- refactor(source): Open query API for adding more types of queries (rust-lang/cargo#10883)
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #98583 (Stabilize Windows `FileTypeExt` with `is_symlink_dir` and `is_symlink_file`)
- #99698 (Prefer visibility map parents that are not `doc(hidden)` first)
- #99700 (Add a clickable link to the layout section)
- #99712 (passes: port more of `check_attr` module)
- #99759 (Remove dead code from cg_llvm)
- #99765 (Don't build std for *-uefi targets)
- #99771 (Update pulldown-cmark version to 0.9.2 (fixes url encoding for some chars))
- #99775 (rustdoc: do not allocate String when writing path full name)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rustdoc: do not allocate String when writing path full name
No idea if this makes any perf difference, but it just seems like premature pessimisation to use String when str will do.
