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 attribute now does more than just place noalias on the return,
and has specific requirements for the signature.
Drop the test entirely, as we already check __rust_alloc attributes
in other codegen tests.
Replace the separate AbortCodegenOnDrop guard by integrating this
functionality into OngoingCodegen (or rather, the Coordinator part
of it). This ensures that we send a CodegenAborted message and
wait for workers to finish even if the panic occurs outside
codegen_crate() (e.g. inside join_codegen()).
This requires some minor changes to the handling of CodegenAborted,
as it can now occur when the main thread is LLVMing rather than
Codegenning.
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
Add a `platform-support` entry to the rustc-docs for the different
`*-unknown-uefi` targets. This describes in detail how this platform
works, a few basic examples, and how to compile for the platform.
Red Hat is sponsoring my work on this platform, so I am putting myself
down as target maintainer. Co-maintainers are more than welcome to join
me in the effort. Communication is going on off-list to coordinate the
different efforts.
Note that the ultimate goal is to move the UEFI targets to Tier-2 so
bootloaders can be more easily supported in commercial products. This
documentation is the first step towards that goal, but should be a
viable documentation even for the current Tier-3 status of the targets.
I also want to point out that there is an ongoing GSoC-effort to port
the rust standard library to UEFI (by Ayush Singh). While this work is
not necessarily required to get to Tier-2, we definitely should
coordinate the efforts and update the documentation as soon as any such
ports are merged.
Note that the targets are already used by multiple commercial and non
commercial production systems, including, but not limited to:
* Tianocore-EDK2 (Official UEFI SDK by Intel) comes with rust support
in its staging repository (not part of any release, yet).
(https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging/tree)
* Intel's research program "Project Mu" uses the rust UEFI targets to
show possible future replacements for Tianocore-EDK2.
* The Rust OS "Redox" uses the UEFI targets for its bootloader.
(https://www.redox-os.org/)
* The hugely popular in-depth documentation of OS development in Rust
by Philipp Oppermann uses the UEFI targets.
(https://os.phil-opp.com/)
Signed-off-by: David Rheinsberg <david.rheinsberg@gmail.com>
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>
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.
Use `action/checkout@v3` in the book
As this type of document is often copied/pasted, using a newer version of `actions/checkout` would be better.
changelog: none
Signed-off-by: Yuki Okushi <jtitor@2k36.org>
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.
passes: port more of `check_attr` module
Continues from #99213.
Port more diagnostics in `rustc_passes::check_attr` to using the diagnostic derive and translation machinery.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Add a clickable link to the layout section
The layout section (activated by `--show-type-layout`) is currently not linkable to (outside of chrome's link to text feature). This PR makes it linkable via `#layout`.
Prefer visibility map parents that are not `doc(hidden)` first
Far simpler approach to #98876.
This only fixes the case where the parent is `doc(hidden)`, not where the child is `doc(hidden)` since I don't know how to get the attrs on the import statement given a `ModChild`... I'll try to follow up with that, but this is a good first step.
Stabilize Windows `FileTypeExt` with `is_symlink_dir` and `is_symlink_file`
These calls allow detecting whether a symlink is a file or a directory,
a distinction Windows maintains, and one important to software that
wants to do further operations on the symlink (e.g. removing it).
