When using a generic enum type that was defined in an external crate,
our debuginfo currently claims that the concrete type (e.g. Option<i32>)
was defined in the current crate, where it was first used.
This means that if there are multiple crates that all use, for example,
Option<i32> values, they'll have conflicting debuginfo, each crate
claiming to have defined that type. This doesn't cause problems in
regular builds, but with LTO enabled, LLVM complains because it tries to
merge the debuginfo for those types and sees the ODR violations.
Since I couldn't find a way to get the file info for the external crate
that actually defined the enum, I'm working around the issue by using
"<unknown>" as the file for enum types. We'll want to re-visit and fix
this later, but this at least this fixes the ICE. And with the file
being unknown instead of wrong, the debuginfo isn't really worse than
before either.
Fixes#26447
This commit turns `#[unstable]` attributes missing an `issue` annotation into a hard error. This will require the libs team to ensure that there's a tracking issue for all unstable features in the standard library.
All existing unstable features have had issues created and they've all been updated. Yay!
Closes#26868
Just a little code cleanup I was doing as part of another refactoring (which may turn out not to be needed). The main thrust of this is to cleanup the interface to `tydecode.rs` to be less ridiculously repetitive. I also purged the generic "def-id conversion" parameter in favor of a trait object, just to reduce code duplication a bit and make the signatures a bit less messy. I measured the bootstrapping time to build stage2 with these changes, it was identical. (But it'd be easy enough to restore the unboxed closure if we wanted it.)
This turns an `#[unstable]` tag without an `issue` annotation into a hard error
to ensure that we've always got a tracking issue for unstable features in the
standard library.
This patch rewrites code in several places which assume that the current target has either 32-bit or 64-bit pointers so that it can support arbitrary-width pointers.
It does not completely remove all assumptions of pointer width, but it does reduce them significantly. There is a discussion [here](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/adding-16-bit-pointer-support/2484/10) about the change.
If you had previously tried to get the ValueRef associated with an
intrinsic that hadn't been described in
`trans::context::declare_intrinsic()`, the compile would panic with
an empty message.
Now we print out details about the error in the panic message.
Current behaviour demo: http://is.gd/l3FEgo
(The span is printed at the start of the source code)
This patch moves the span to the use of `$i` in the macro rhs (as the code comment already claims)
This commit is an implementation of [RFC 1183][rfc] which allows swapping out
the default allocator on nightly Rust. No new stable surface area should be
added as a part of this commit.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1183
Two new attributes have been added to the compiler:
* `#![needs_allocator]` - this is used by liballoc (and likely only liballoc) to
indicate that it requires an allocator crate to be in scope.
* `#![allocator]` - this is a indicator that the crate is an allocator which can
satisfy the `needs_allocator` attribute above.
The ABI of the allocator crate is defined to be a set of symbols that implement
the standard Rust allocation/deallocation functions. The symbols are not
currently checked for exhaustiveness or typechecked. There are also a number of
restrictions on these crates:
* An allocator crate cannot transitively depend on a crate that is flagged as
needing an allocator (e.g. allocator crates can't depend on liballoc).
* There can only be one explicitly linked allocator in a final image.
* If no allocator is explicitly requested one will be injected on behalf of the
compiler. Binaries and Rust dylibs will use jemalloc by default where
available and staticlibs/other dylibs will use the system allocator by
default.
Two allocators are provided by the distribution by default, `alloc_system` and
`alloc_jemalloc` which operate as advertised.
Closes#27389
This commit is an implementation of [RFC 1183][rfc] which allows swapping out
the default allocator on nightly Rust. No new stable surface area should be
added as a part of this commit.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1183
Two new attributes have been added to the compiler:
* `#![needs_allocator]` - this is used by liballoc (and likely only liballoc) to
indicate that it requires an allocator crate to be in scope.
* `#![allocator]` - this is a indicator that the crate is an allocator which can
satisfy the `needs_allocator` attribute above.
The ABI of the allocator crate is defined to be a set of symbols that implement
the standard Rust allocation/deallocation functions. The symbols are not
currently checked for exhaustiveness or typechecked. There are also a number of
restrictions on these crates:
* An allocator crate cannot transitively depend on a crate that is flagged as
needing an allocator (e.g. allocator crates can't depend on liballoc).
* There can only be one explicitly linked allocator in a final image.
* If no allocator is explicitly requested one will be injected on behalf of the
compiler. Binaries and Rust dylibs will use jemalloc by default where
available and staticlibs/other dylibs will use the system allocator by
default.
Two allocators are provided by the distribution by default, `alloc_system` and
`alloc_jemalloc` which operate as advertised.
Closes#27389
This PR implements the majority of RFC 1214. In particular, it implements:
- the new outlives relation
- comprehensive WF checking
For the most part, new code receives warnings, not errors, though 3 regressions were found via a crater run.
There are some deviations from RFC 1214. Most notably:
- we still consider implied bounds from fn ret; this intersects other soundness issues that I intend to address in detail in a follow-up RFC. Fixing this without breaking a lot of code probably requires rewriting compare-method somewhat (which is probably a good thing).
- object types do not check trait bounds for fear of encountering `Self`; this was left as an unresolved question in RFC 1214, but ultimately feels inconsistent.
Both of those two issues are highlighted in the tracking issue, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27579. #27579 also includes a testing matrix with new tests that I wrote -- these probably duplicate some existing tests, I tried to check but wasn't quite sure what to look for. I tried to be thorough in testing the WF relation, at least, but would welcome suggestions for missing tests.
r? @nrc (or perhaps someone else?)
