Sync `rust-analyzer`, add `rust-analyzer-proc-macro-srv` binary to Rustc component
As discussed earlier with `@jyn514` and `@pietroalbini,` I'm also going to use this PR to have `dist::Rustc` build the `rust-analyzer-proc-macro-srv` binary introduced in:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/pull/12871
This avoids monomorphizing all linker code for each codegen backend and
will allow passing in extra information to the archive builder from the
codegen backend.
mem::uninitialized: mitigate many incorrect uses of this function
Alternative to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98966: fill memory with `0x01` rather than leaving it uninit. This is definitely bitewise valid for all `bool` and nonnull types, and also those `Option<&T>` that we started putting `noundef` on. However it is still invalid for `char` and some enums, and on references the `dereferenceable` attribute is still violated, so the generated LLVM IR still has UB -- but in fewer cases, and `dereferenceable` is hopefully less likely to cause problems than clearly incorrect range annotations.
This can make using `mem::uninitialized` a lot slower, but that function has been deprecated for years and we keep telling everyone to move to `MaybeUninit` because it is basically impossible to use `mem::uninitialized` correctly. For the cases where that hasn't helped (and all the old code out there that nobody will ever update), we can at least mitigate the effect of using this API. Note that this is *not* in any way a stable guarantee -- it is still UB to call `mem::uninitialized::<bool>()`, and Miri will call it out as such.
This is somewhat similar to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87032, which proposed to make `uninitialized` return a buffer filled with 0x00. However
- That PR also proposed to reduce the situations in which we panic, which I don't think we should do at this time.
- The 0x01 bit pattern means that nonnull requirements are satisfied, which (due to references) is the most common validity invariant.
`@5225225` I hope I am using `cfg(sanitize)` the right way; I was not sure for which ones to test here.
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66151
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87675
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.**
