fork fails there. The failure message is confusing: so c.status()
returns an Err, the closure panics, and the test thinks the panic was
propagated from inside the child.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Co-authored-by: Mara Bos <m-ou.se@m-ou.se>
This test failed on an earlier version of this branch, where this did
not work properly, so I know the test works.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Previoously, if somehow this program got a wrong argument, it would
panic in the re-executed child. But that looks like a "success"
for this program! We mustn't panic unless everything is great.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
This tests that we can indeed safely panic after fork, both
a raw libc::fork and in a Command pre_exec hook.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Co-authored-by: Mara Bos <m-ou.se@m-ou.se>
This is safe (does not involve heap allocation) but we don't yet have
a test to ensure that stays true. That will come in a moment.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Co-authored-by: Mara Bos <m-ou.se@m-ou.se>
Unwinding after fork() in the child is UB on some platforms, because
on those (including musl) malloc can be UB in the child of a
multithreaded program, and unwinding must box for the payload.
Even if it's safe, unwinding past fork() in the child causes whatever
traps the unwind to return twice. This is very strange and clearly
not desirable. With the default behaviour of the thread library, this
can even result in a panic in the child being transformed into zero
exit status (ie, success) as seen in the parent!
Fixes#79740.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
We must change the atomic read on panic entry to `Acquire`, to pick up
a possible an `always_panic` on another thread.
We add `count` to the names of panic_count::get and ::is_zaero,
because now there is another reason why panic ought to maybe abort.
Renaming these ensures that we have checked every call site to ensure
that they don't need further adjustment.
Signed-off-by: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Co-authored-by: Mara Bos <m-ou.se@m-ou.se>
CTFE inbounds-error-messages tweak
* use CheckInAllocMsg::PointerArithmeticTest for ptr_offset error
* nicer errors for some null pointer cases
r? `@oli-obk`
Retry clang+llvm download
We've been seeing a pretty high rate of spurious network failures (e.g., openssl
connection reset by peer). Not clear why, but let's add a retry.
r? `@pietroalbini`
Coverage instruments closure bodies in macros (not the macro body)
Fixes: #84884
This solution might be considered a compromise, but I think it is the
better choice.
The results in the `closure.rs` test correctly resolve all test cases
broken as described in #84884.
One test pattern (in both `closure_macro.rs` and
`closure_macro_async.rs`) was also affected, and removes coverage
statistics for the lines inside the closure, because the closure
includes a macro. (The coverage remains at the callsite of the macro, so
we lose some detail, but there isn't a perfect choice with macros.
Often macro implementations are split across the macro and the callsite,
and there doesn't appear to be a single "right choice" for which body
should be covered. For the current implementation, we can't do both.
The callsite is most likely to be the preferred site for coverage.
r? `@tmandry`
cc: `@wesleywiser`
Removes unneeded check of `#[no_coverage]` in mapgen
There is an anticipated feature request to support a compiler flag that
only adds coverage for specific files (or perhaps mods). As I thought
about where that change would need to be supported, I realized that
checking the attribute in mapgen (for unused functions) was unnecessary.
The unused functions are only synthesized if they have MIR coverage, and
functions with the `no_coverage` attribute will not have been
instrumented with MIR coverage statements in the first place.
New tests confirm this.
Also, while adding tests, I updated resolved comments and FIXMEs in
other tests, and expanded comments and tests on one remaining issue that
is still not resolved.
r? `@tmandry`
cc: `@wesleywiser`
Don't check bootstrap artifacts by default
Bootstrap has to build successfully or this won't run, so all it checks
are the tests, which are uncommon to change.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76624.
Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #84409 (Ensure TLS destructors run before thread joins in SGX)
- #84500 (Add --run flag to compiletest)
- #84728 (Add test for suggestion to borrow unsized function parameters)
- #84734 (Add `needs-unwind` and beginning of support for testing `panic=abort` std to compiletest)
- #84755 (Allow using `core::` in intra-doc links within core itself)
- #84871 (Disallows `#![feature(no_coverage)]` on stable and beta (using standard crate-level gating))
- #84872 (Wire up tidy dependency checks for cg_clif)
- #84896 (Handle incorrect placement of parentheses in trait bounds more gracefully)
- #84905 (CTFE engine: rename copy → copy_intrinsic, move to intrinsics.rs)
- #84953 (Remove unneeded call to with_default_session_globals in rustdoc highlight)
- #84987 (small nits)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Remove unneeded call to with_default_session_globals in rustdoc highlight
This was the origin of the `Span` bug in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/84176.
cc `````@Aaron1011`````
r? `````@jyn514`````
CTFE engine: rename copy → copy_intrinsic, move to intrinsics.rs
The `copy` name is confusing for this function because we also have `copy_op` which is pretty different. I hope `copy_intrinsic` is clearer. Also `step.rs` should really just contain the main loop and opcode dispatch, so move this helper function to a more appropriate place.
r? ``````@oli-obk``````
Disallows `#![feature(no_coverage)]` on stable and beta (using standard crate-level gating)
Fixes: #84836
Removes the function-level feature gating solution originally implemented, and solves the same problem using `allow_internal_unstable`, so normal crate-level feature gating mechanism can still be used (which disallows the feature on stable and beta).
I tested this, building the compiler with and without `CFG_DISABLE_UNSTABLE_FEATURES=1`
With unstable features disabled, I get the expected result as shown here:
```shell
$ ./build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/bin/rustc src/test/run-make-fulldeps/coverage/no_cov_crate.rs
error[E0554]: `#![feature]` may not be used on the dev release channel
--> src/test/run-make-fulldeps/coverage/no_cov_crate.rs:2:1
|
2 | #![feature(no_coverage)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0554`.
```
r? ````@Mark-Simulacrum````
cc: ````@tmandry```` ````@wesleywiser````
Allow using `core::` in intra-doc links within core itself
I came up with this idea ages ago, but rustdoc used to ICE on it. Now it doesn't.
Helps with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73445. Doesn't fix it completely since `extern crate self as std;` in std still gives strange errors.
Add `needs-unwind` and beginning of support for testing `panic=abort` std to compiletest
For the Fuchsia platform we build libstd with `panic=abort` and would like a way to run tests with that enabled. This adds low-level support for this directly to compiletest.
In the future I'd like to add high-level support in rustbuild, e.g. having target-specific flags that allow configuring a panic strategy. (Side note: It would be nice if we could also build multiple configurations for the same target, but I'm getting ahead of myself.)
This plus #84500 have everything that's needed to get ui tests passing on fuchsia targets.
Part of #84766. Note that this change only includes the header on tests which need an unwinder to _build_, not those which need it to _run_.
r? ````@Mark-Simulacrum````
Add test for suggestion to borrow unsized function parameters
Closes#82820.
This is a regression test for #82820.
This test case is included in more general tests, but I think the error
regressed because there were a bunch of other diagnostic changes in the
test that obscured this regression.
Hopefully, having a test specific to the suggestion, and running rustfix
for the test, will prevent this error from regressing in the future.
And adds tests to validate it still works.
There is an anticipated feature request to support a compiler flag that
only adds coverage for specific files (or perhaps mods). As I thought
about where that change would need to be supported, I realized that
checking the attribute in mapgen (for unused functions) was unnecessary.
The unused functions are only synthesized if they have MIR coverage, and
functions with the `no_coverage` attribute will not have been
instrumented with MIR coverage statements in the first place.
New tests confirm this.
Also, while adding tests, I updated resolved comments and FIXMEs in
other tests.
This is a regression test for #82820.
This test case is included in more general tests, but I think the error
regressed because there were a bunch of other diagnostic changes in the
test that obscured this regression.
Hopefully, having a test specific to the suggestion, and running rustfix
for the test, will prevent this error from regressing in the future.
Fixes: #84884
This solution might be considered a compromise, but I think it is the
better choice.
The results in the `closure.rs` test correctly resolve all test cases
broken as described in #84884.
One test pattern (in both `closure_macro.rs` and
`closure_macro_async.rs`) was also affected, and removes coverage
statistics for the lines inside the closure, because the closure
includes a macro. (The coverage remains at the callsite of the macro, so
we lose some detail, but there isn't a perfect choice with macros.
Often macro implementations are split across the macro and the callsite,
and there doesn't appear to be a single "right choice" for which body
should be covered. For the current implementation, we can't do both.
The callsite is most likely to be the preferred site for coverage.
I applied this fix to all `MacroKinds`, not just `Bang`.
I'm trying to resolve an issue of lost coverage in a
`MacroKind::Attr`-based, function-scoped macro. Instead of only
searching for a body_span that is "not a function-like macro" (that is,
MacroKind::Bang), I'm expanding this to all `MacroKind`s. Maybe I should
expand this to `ExpnKind::Desugaring` and `ExpnKind::AstPass` (or
subsets, depending on their sub-kinds) as well, but I'm not sure that's
a good idea.
I'd like to add a test of the `Attr` macro on functions, but I need time
to figure out how to constract a good, simple example without external
crate dependencies. For the moment, all tests still work as expected (no
change), this new commit shouldn't have a negative affect, and more
importantly, I believe it will have a positive effect. I will try to
confirm this.
Deduplicate ParamCandidates with the same value except for bound vars
Fixes#84398
This is kind of a hack. I wonder if we can get other types of candidates that are the same except for bound vars. This won't be a problem with Chalk, since we don't really need to know that there are two different "candidates" if they both give the same final substitution.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
