Update cargo (CVE-2023-38497 fix included)
2 commits in 020651c52257052d28f6fd83fbecf5cfa1ed516c..d78bbf4bde3c6b95caca7512f537c6f9721426ff
2023-08-02 16:00:37 +0000 to 2023-08-03 12:58:25 +0000
- Fix CVE-2023-38497 for master (rust-lang/cargo#12443)
- Don't attempt to read a token from stdin if a cmdline token is provided (rust-lang/cargo#12440)
r? `@ghost`
Skip checking of `rustc_codegen_gcc` with vendoring enabled
`rustc_codegen_gcc` currently cannot be vendored, which [breaks](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/112393) `x.py check` with vendoring enabled. Until the vendoring issue is resolved, it would be nice if `x.py check` could succeed (and just skip `gcc`) with `vendor = true`. With this PR, it does.
Related issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/112393
r? bootstrap
Temporary remove myself from review rotation
I'm going on vacation from 7-th to 15-th and won't be reviewing PRs or writing code.
Feel free to still ping me if you want, I'll read everything when I'm back, but most likely not sooner =)
const validation: point at where we found a pointer but expected an integer
Instead of validation just printing "unable to turn pointer into bytes", make this a regular validation error that says where in the value the bad pointer was found. Also distinguish "expected integer, got pointer" from "expected pointer, got partial pointer or mix of pointers".
To avoid duplicating things too much I refactored the diagnostics for validity a bit, so that "got uninit, expected X" and "got pointer, expected X" can share the "X" part. Also all the errors emitted for validation are now grouped under `const_eval_validation` so that they are in a single group in the ftl file.
r? `@oli-obk`
parser: more friendly hints for handling `async move` in the 2015 edition
Fixes#114219
An error is emitted when encountering an async move block in the 2015 edition.
Another appropriate location to raise an error is after executing [let path = this.parse_path(PathStyle::Expr)?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/stmt.rs#L152), but it seems somewhat premature to invoke `create_err` at that stage.
Expand, rename and improve `incorrect_fn_null_checks` lint
This PR,
- firstly, expand the lint by now linting on references
- secondly, it renames the lint `incorrect_fn_null_checks` -> `useless_ptr_null_checks`
- and thirdly it improves the lint by catching `ptr::from_mut`, `ptr::from_ref`, as well as `<*mut _>::cast` and `<*const _>::cast_mut`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113601
cc ```@est31```
It lints against features that are inteded to be internal to the
compiler and standard library. Implements MCP #596.
We allow `internal_features` in the standard library and compiler as those
use many features and this _is_ the standard library from the "internal to the compiler and
standard library" after all.
Marking some features as internal wasn't exactly the most scientific approach, I just marked some
mostly obvious features. While there is a categorization in the macro,
it's not very well upheld (should probably be fixed in another PR).
We always pass `-Ainternal_features` in the testsuite
About 400 UI tests and several other tests use internal features.
Instead of throwing the attribute on each one, just always allow them.
There's nothing wrong with testing internal features^^
Infer type in irrefutable slice patterns with fixed length as array
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76342
In irrefutable slice patterns with a fixed length, we can infer the type as an array type. We now choose to prefer some implementations over others, e.g. in:
```
struct Zeroes;
const ARR: [usize; 2] = [0; 2];
const ARR2: [usize; 2] = [2; 2];
impl Into<&'static [usize; 2]> for Zeroes {
fn into(self) -> &'static [usize; 2] {
&ARR
}
}
impl Into<&'static [usize]> for Zeroes {
fn into(self) -> &'static [usize] {
&ARR2
}
}
fn main() {
let &[a, b] = Zeroes.into();
}
```
We now prefer the impl candidate `impl Into<&'static [usize; 2]> for Zeroes`, it's not entirely clear to me that this is correct, but given that the slice impl would require a type annotation anyway, this doesn't seem unreasonable.
r? `@lcnr`
Fix suggestion spans for expr from macro expansions
### Issue #112007: rustc shows expanded `writeln!` macro in code suggestion
#### Before This PR
```
help: consider using a semicolon here
|
6 | };
| +
help: you might have meant to return this value
--> C:\Users\hayle\.rustup\toolchains\nightly-x86_64-pc-windows-msvc\lib/rustlib/src/rust\library\core\src\macros\mod.rs:557:9
|
55| return $dst.write_fmt($crate::format_args_nl!($($arg)*));
| ++++++ +
```
#### After This PR
```
help: consider using a semicolon here
|
LL | };
| +
help: you might have meant to return this value
|
LL | return writeln!(w, "but not here");
| ++++++ +
```
### Issue #110017: `format!` `.into()` suggestion deletes the `format` macro
#### Before This PR
```
help: call `Into::into` on this expression to convert `String` into `Box<dyn std::error::Error>`
--> /Users/eric/.rustup/toolchains/nightly-aarch64-apple-darwin/lib/rustlib/src/rust/library/alloc/src/macros.rs:121:12
|
12| res.into()
| +++++++
```
#### After This PR
```
help: call `Into::into` on this expression to convert `String` into `Box<dyn std::error::Error>`
|
LL | Err(format!("error: {x}").into())
| +++++++
```
---
Fixes#112007.
Fixes#110017.
