Adding needs-unwind to nicer-assert-messages compiler ui tests
Tests where unwind is required for asserting on contents of error message
cc. ``@djkoloski``
r? ``@tmandry``
Adding ignore fuchsia tests for signal interpretation cases
Tests where Signal interpreting is required. Since Fuchsia currently does not return signals of type `libc::SIGSEGV` etc., instead, use generalized `!status.success()` case.
cc. `@djkoloski`
r? `@tmandry`
Don't crate-locally reexport walk functions in tidy
I've moved the walk functions into their own module in #100591 and didn't want to make changing the paths everywhere in tidy part of the PRs diff, so I just reexported the functions locally. This PR removes the crate-local reexport and instead does module level reexports. I'm not sure how much it's worth it and whether the new state is better, idk. Feel free to have any opinion on this.
Avoid panicking on missing fallback
This just prints a message but continues on if a fallback is missing, which can happen when we're building a partial set of builders and producing a dev-static build from it (e.g., when no Apple builder runs at all).
Probably the more extensive fix is to allow the build-manifest invoker to specify the expected set of targets & hosts, but that's a far more extensive change. The main risk from this is that we accidentally start falling back to linux docs across all platforms without noticing. I'm not sure that we can do much about that though at this time.
cc `@ehuss` since IIRC you participated in adding this system
This comes up when building a test nightly from a try build, e.g., https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/101855#issuecomment-1250123298. For now I'm going to manually cherry pick this onto that PR for testing purposes.
Move and rename `SessionDiagnostic` & `SessionSubdiagnostic` traits and macros
After PR #101434, we want to:
- [x] Move `SessionDiagnostic` to `rustc_errors`.
- [x] Add `emit_` methods that accept `impl SessionDiagnostic` to `Handler`.
- [x] _(optional)_ Rename trait `SessionDiagnostic` to `DiagnosticHandler`.
- [x] _(optional)_ Rename macro `SessionDiagnostic` to `DiagnosticHandler`.
- [x] Update Rustc Dev Guide and Docs to reflect these changes. https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/1460
Now I am having build issues getting the compiler to build when trying to rename the macro.
<details>
<summary>See diagnostics errors and context when building.</summary>
```
error: diagnostics should only be created in `SessionDiagnostic`/`AddSubdiagnostic` impls
--> compiler/rustc_attr/src/session_diagnostics.rs:13:10
|
13 | #[derive(DiagnosticHandler)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in this derive macro expansion
|
::: /Users/jhonny/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/synstructure-0.12.6/src/macros.rs:94:9
|
94 | / pub fn $derives(
95 | | i: $crate::macros::TokenStream
96 | | ) -> $crate::macros::TokenStream {
| |________________________________________- in this expansion of `#[derive(DiagnosticHandler)]`
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> compiler/rustc_attr/src/lib.rs:10:9
|
10 | #![deny(rustc::diagnostic_outside_of_impl)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
And also this one:
```
error: diagnostics should only be created in `SessionDiagnostic`/`AddSubdiagnostic` impls
--> compiler/rustc_attr/src/session_diagnostics.rs:213:32
|
213 | let mut diag = handler.struct_span_err_with_code(
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
> **Note**
> Can't find where this message is coming from, because you can see in [this experimental branch](https://github.com/JhonnyBillM/rust/tree/experimental/trying-to-rename-session-diagnostic-macro) that I updated all errors and diags to say:
> error: diagnostics should only be created in **`DiagnosticHandler`**/`AddSubdiagnostic` impls
> and not:
> error: diagnostics should only be created in **`SessionDiagnostic`**/`AddSubdiagnostic` impls
</details>
I tried building the compiler in different ways (playing with the stages etc), but nothing worked.
## Question
**Do we need to build or do something different when renaming a macro and identifiers?**
For context, see experimental commit f2193a98b4 where the macro and symbols are renamed, but it doesn't compile.
FIX - ambiguous Diagnostic link in docs
UPDATE - rename diagnostic_items to IntoDiagnostic and AddToDiagnostic
[Gardening] FIX - formatting via `x fmt`
FIX - rebase conflicts. NOTE: Confirm wheather or not we want to handle TargetDataLayoutErrorsWrapper this way
DELETE - unneeded allow attributes in Handler method
FIX - broken test
FIX - Rebase conflict
UPDATE - rename residual _SessionDiagnostic and fix LintDiag link
Clarify Path::extension() semantics in docs abstract
State up-front and center what shape the returned extension will have, without making the user read through the description and examples.
This is a doc-only change. There are no changes to the API contract and the clarification is in line with what was already stated/promised in the existing doc text - just clarified, summarized, and served bright and early.
Rationale: Various frameworks and libraries for different platforms have their different conventions as to whether an "extension" is ".ext" or just "ext" and anyone that's had to deal with this ambiguity in the past is always double- or triple-checking to make sure the function call returns an extension that matches the expected semantics. Offer the answer to this important question right off the bat instead of making them dig to find it.
```@rustbot``` label +A-docs
Adding ignore fuchsia tests for Backtrace, ErrorKind cases
Tests where Backtrace parses are required (invalid since Fuchsia backtraces are not symbolized), and test where ErrorKind is not properly translated from a Fuchsia-style to Unix-style error code
cc. ```@djkoloski```
r? ```@tmandry```
Add armv5te-none-eabi and thumbv5te-none-eabi targets
Creates two new Tier 3 targets, `armv5te-none-eabi` and `thumbv5te-none-eabi`. They are for the same target architecture (armv5te), but one defaults to the A32 instruction set and the other defaults to T32. Based on the existing `armv4t-none-eabi` and `thumbv4t-none-eabi` targets.
My particular use case for these targets is Nintendo DS homebrew, but they should be usable for any armv5te system.
Going through the Tier 3 target policy:
> A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
That will be me.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets.
Naming is consistent with previous targets.
>> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility.
No ambiguity here.
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
Doesn't create any legal issues.
>> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
This doesn't introduce any new licenses.
>> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Yep.
>> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
No new license requirements.
>> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries.
Everything this uses is FOSS, no proprietary required.
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
OK.
>> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
OK.
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
This is a bare-metal target with only support for `core` (and `alloc`, if the user provides an allocator).
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Documentation has been added.
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via `@)` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
OK.
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.
OK.
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
This doesn't break any other targets.
>> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
No unnecessary unconditional features here.
