Uplift the invalid_atomic_ordering lint from clippy to rustc
This is mostly just a rebase of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79654; I've copy/pasted the text from that PR below.
r? `@lcnr` since you reviewed the last one, but feel free to reassign.
---
This is an implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/390.
As mentioned, in general this turns an unconditional runtime panic into a (compile time) lint failure. It has no false positives, and the only false negatives I'm aware of are if `Ordering` isn't specified directly and is comes from an argument/constant/whatever.
As a result of it having no false positives, and the alternative always being strictly wrong, it's on as deny by default. This seems right.
In the [zulip stream](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/233931-t-compiler.2Fmajor-changes/topic/Uplift.20the.20.60invalid_atomic_ordering.60.20lint.20from.20clippy/near/218483957) `@joshtriplett` suggested that lang team should FCP this before landing it. Perhaps libs team cares too?
---
Some notes on the code for reviewers / others below
## Changes from clippy
The code is changed from [the implementation in clippy](68cf94f6a6/clippy_lints/src/atomic_ordering.rs) in the following ways:
1. Uses `Symbols` and `rustc_diagnostic_item`s instead of string literals.
- It's possible I should have just invoked Symbol::intern for some of these instead? Seems better to use symbol, but it did require adding several.
2. The functions are moved to static methods inside the lint struct, as a way to namespace them.
- There's a lot of other code in that file — which I picked as the location for this lint because `@jyn514` told me that seemed reasonable.
3. Supports unstable AtomicU128/AtomicI128.
- I did this because it was almost easier to support them than not — not supporting them would have (ideally) required finding a way not to give them a `rustc_diagnostic_item`, which would have complicated an already big macro.
- These don't have tests since I wasn't sure if/how I should make tests conditional on whether or not the target has the atomic... This is to a certain extent an issue of 64bit atomics too, but 128-bit atomics are much less common. Regardless, the existing tests should be *more* than thorough enough here.
4. Minor changes like:
- grammar tweaks ("loads cannot have `Release` **and** `AcqRel` ordering" => "loads cannot have `Release` **or** `AcqRel` ordering")
- function renames (`match_ordering_def_path` => `matches_ordering_def_path`),
- avoiding clippy-specific helper methods that don't exist in rustc_lint and didn't seem worth adding for this case (for example `cx.struct_span_lint` vs clippy's `span_lint_and_help` helper).
## Potential issues
(This is just about the code in this PR, not conceptual issues with the lint or anything)
1. I'm not sure if I should have used a diagnostic item for `Ordering` and its variants (I couldn't figure out how really, so if I should do this some pointers would be appreciated).
- It seems possible that failing to do this might possibly mean there are more cases this lint would miss, but I don't really know how `match_def_path` works and if it has any pitfalls like that, so maybe not.
2. I *think* I deprecated the lint in clippy (CC `@flip1995` who asked to be notified about clippy changes in the future in [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75671#issuecomment-718731659)) but I'm not sure if I need to do anything else there.
- I'm kind of hoping CI will catch if I missed anything, since `x.py test src/tools/clippy` fails with a lot of errors with and without my changes (and is probably a nonsense command regardless). Running `cargo test` from src/tools/clippy also fails with unrelated errors that seem like refactorings that didnt update clippy? So, honestly no clue.
3. I wasn't sure if the description/example I gave good. Hopefully it is. The example is less thorough than the one from clippy here: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#invalid_atomic_ordering. Let me know if/how I should change it if it needs changing.
4. It pulls in the `if_chain` crate. This crate was already used in clippy, and seems like it's used elsewhere in rustc, but I'm willing to rewrite it to not use this if needed (I'd prefer not to, all things being equal).
- Deprecate clippy::invalid_atomic_ordering
- Use rustc_diagnostic_item for the orderings in the invalid_atomic_ordering lint
- Reduce code duplication
- Give up on making enum variants diagnostic items and just look for
`Ordering` instead
I ran into tons of trouble with this because apparently the change to
store HIR attrs in a side table also gave the DefIds of the
constructor instead of the variant itself. So I had to change
`matches_ordering` to also check the grandparent of the defid as well.
- Rename `atomic_ordering_x` symbols to just the name of the variant
- Fix typos in checks - there were a few places that said "may not be
Release" in the diagnostic but actually checked for SeqCst in the lint.
- Make constant items const
- Use fewer diagnostic items
- Only look at arguments after making sure the method matches
This prevents an ICE when there aren't enough arguments.
- Ignore trait methods
- Only check Ctors instead of going through `qpath_res`
The functions take values, so this couldn't ever be anything else.
- Add if_chain to allowed dependencies
- Fix grammar
- Remove unnecessary allow
Add support for clobber_abi to asm!
This PR adds the `clobber_abi` feature that was proposed in #81092.
Fixes#81092
cc `@rust-lang/wg-inline-asm`
r? `@nagisa`
Lint against named asm labels
This adds a deny-by-default lint to prevent the use of named labels in inline `asm!`. Without a solution to #81088 about whether the compiler should rewrite named labels or a special syntax for labels, a lint against them should prevent users from writing assembly that could break for internal compiler reasons, such as inlining or anything else that could change the number of actual inline assembly blocks emitted.
This does **not** resolve the issue with rewriting labels, that still needs a decision if the compiler should do any more work to try to make them work.
Try filtering out non-const impls when we expect const impls
**TL;DR**: Associated types on const impls are now bounded; we now disallow calling a const function with bounds when the specified type param only has a non-const impl.
r? `@oli-obk`
Name the captured upvars for closures/generators in debuginfo
Previously, debuggers print closures as something like
```
y::main::closure-0 (0x7fffffffdd34)
```
The pointer actually references to an upvar. It is not very obvious, especially for beginners.
It's because upvars don't have names before, as they are packed into a tuple. This PR names the upvars, so we can expect to see something like
```
y::main::closure-0 {_captured_ref__b: 0x[...]}
```
r? `@tmandry`
Discussed at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/84752#issuecomment-831639489 .
Associated functions that contain extern indicator or have `#[rustc_std_internal_symbol]` are reachable
Previously these fails to link with ``undefined reference to `foo'``:
<details>
<summary>Example 1</summary>
```rs
struct AssocFn;
impl AssocFn {
#[no_mangle]
fn foo() {}
}
fn main() {
extern "Rust" {
fn foo();
}
unsafe { foo() }
}
```
([Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=f1244afcdd26e2a28445f6e82ca46b50))
</details>
<details>
<summary>Example 2</summary>
```rs
#![crate_name = "lib"]
#![crate_type = "lib"]
struct AssocFn;
impl AssocFn {
#[no_mangle]
fn foo() {}
}
```
```rs
extern crate lib;
fn main() {
extern "Rust" {
fn foo();
}
unsafe { foo() }
}
```
</details>
But I believe they should link successfully, because this works:
<details>
```rs
#[no_mangle]
fn foo() {}
fn main() {
extern "Rust" {
fn foo();
}
unsafe { foo() }
}
```
([Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=789b3f283ee6126f53939429103ed98d))
</details>
This PR fixes the problem, by adding associated functions that have "custom linkage" to `reachable_set`, just like normal functions.
I haven't tested whether #76211 and [Miri](https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/1837) are fixed by this PR yet, but I'm submitting this anyway since this fixes the examples above.
I added a `run-pass` test that combines my two examples above, but I'm not sure if that's the right way to test this. Maybe I should add / modify an existing codegen test (`src/test/codegen/export-no-mangle.rs`?) instead?
Revert "Rollup merge of #87779 - Aaron1011:stmt-ast-id, r=petrochenkov"
Fixes#87877
This change interacts badly with `noop_flat_map_stmt`,
which synthesizes multiple statements with the same `NodeId`.
I'm working on a better fix that will still allow us to
remove this special case. For now, let's revert the change
to fix the ICE.
This reverts commit a4262cc984, reversing
changes made to 8ee962f88e.
Avoid ICE caused by suggestion
When suggesting dereferencing something that can be iterable in a `for`
loop, erase lifetimes and use a fresh `ty::ParamEnv` to avoid 'region
constraints already solved' panic.
Fix#87657, fix#87709, fix#87651.
Fix closure migration suggestion when the body is a macro.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87955
Before:
```
warning: changes to closure capture in Rust 2021 will affect drop order
--> src/main.rs:5:13
|
5 | let _ = || panic!(a.0);
| ^^^^^^^^^^---^
| |
| in Rust 2018, closure captures all of `a`, but in Rust 2021, it only captures `a.0`
6 | }
| - in Rust 2018, `a` would be dropped here, but in Rust 2021, only `a.0` would be dropped here alongside the closure
|
help: add a dummy let to cause `a` to be fully captured
|
20~ ($msg:expr $(,)?) => ({ let _ = &a;
21+ $crate::rt::begin_panic($msg)
22~ }),
|
```
After:
```
warning: changes to closure capture in Rust 2021 will affect drop order
--> src/main.rs:5:13
|
5 | let _ = || panic!(a.0);
| ^^^^^^^^^^---^
| |
| in Rust 2018, closure captures all of `a`, but in Rust 2021, it only captures `a.0`
6 | }
| - in Rust 2018, `a` would be dropped here, but in Rust 2021, only `a.0` would be dropped here alongside the closure
|
help: add a dummy let to cause `a` to be fully captured
|
5 | let _ = || { let _ = &a; panic!(a.0) };
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
```
Silence non_fmt_panic from external macros.
This stops the non_fmt_panic lint from triggering if a macro from another crate is entirely responsible. In those cases there's nothing that the current crate can/should do.
See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87621#issuecomment-890311054
Improve formatting of closure capture migration suggestion for multi-line closures.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87952
Before:
```
help: add a dummy let to cause `a` to be fully captured
|
5 ~ let _ = || { let _ = &a;
6 + dbg!(a.0);
7 ~ };
|
```
After:
```
help: add a dummy let to cause `a` to be fully captured
|
5 ~ let _ = || {
6 + let _ = &a;
7 + dbg!(a.0);
8 ~ };
|
```
Add c_enum_min_bits target spec field, use for arm-none and thumb-none targets
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87917
<s>Haven't tested this yet, still playing around.</s>
This seems to fix the issue.
Implement `black_box` using intrinsic
Introduce `black_box` intrinsic, as suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87590#discussion_r680468700.
This is still codegenned as empty inline assembly for LLVM. For MIR interpretation and cranelift it's treated as identity.
cc `@Amanieu` as this is related to inline assembly
cc `@bjorn3` for rustc_codegen_cranelift changes
cc `@RalfJung` as this affects MIRI
r? `@nagisa` I suppose
