Replace `f16` and `f128` pattern matching stubs with real implementations
This section of code depends on `rustc_apfloat` rather than our internal types, so this is one potential ICE that we should be able to melt now.
r? `@Nadrieril`
This section of code depends on `rustc_apfloat` rather than our internal
types, so this is one potential ICE that we should be able to melt now.
This also fixes some missing range and match handling in `rustc_middle`.
Support absolute source paths in bootstrap
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126765
`x test [PATHS]` should work when each path
1. Is the name of a build step, such as `tidy` in `x test tidy` or
2. Points to an existing file that is a descendant of the builder's source directory (root of this repository).
Try to clarify the confusingly-named `RustDev` and `RustcDev` steps
When trying to track down how the downloaded LLVM gets built and bundled, I was greatly confused by these step names.
I wasn't sure whether I could just rename them (since they correspond to the filename of the resulting tarball), but I at least wanted to leave behind some signposts to reduce confusion.
Ignore `branch-protection-check-IBT` run-make test
The old Makefile implementation (#110304) had an improper comparison which caused the test to never run. However, both the updated Makefile implementation and the rmake implementation fail (missing `.note.gnu.property`). This could be a bug in the original implementation or test flakiness.
Edit: Manually recreating the test case shows that `.note.gnu.property` does not appear in nightly.
```rust
// main.rs
fn main() {
println!("hello world");
}
```
```sh
$ rustc +nightly -V
rustc 1.81.0-nightly (c1b336cb6 2024-06-21)
$ rustc +stable -V
rustc 1.79.0 (129f3b996 2024-06-10)
```
```sh
$ rustc +nightly -Zcf-protection=branch -Clink-args=-nostartfiles -Csave-temps "-L$PWD" main.rs -o main
$ llvm-readobj --elf-output-style=GNU -nW main
Displaying notes found in: .note.gnu.build-id
Owner Data size Description
GNU 0x00000008 NT_GNU_BUILD_ID (unique build ID bitstring)
Build ID: bcae34e6431b2a37
```
Compiling without the other flags still does not show `.note.gnu.property`.
```sh
$ rustc +nightly main.rs -o main
$ llvm-readobj --elf-output-style=GNU -nW main
Displaying notes found in: .note.ABI-tag
Owner Data size Description
GNU 0x00000010 NT_GNU_ABI_TAG (ABI version tag)
OS: Linux, ABI: 4.4.0
Displaying notes found in: .note.gnu.build-id
Owner Data size Description
GNU 0x00000008 NT_GNU_BUILD_ID (unique build ID bitstring)
Build ID: d60d5f108b63bf3a
```
Compiling on stable shows `.note.gnu.property`.
```sh
$ rustc +stable main.rs -o main
$ llvm-readobj --elf-output-style=GNU -nW main
Displaying notes found in: .note.gnu.property
Owner Data size Description
GNU 0x00000010 NT_GNU_PROPERTY_TYPE_0 (property note)
Properties: x86 ISA needed: x86-64-baseline
Displaying notes found in: .note.gnu.build-id
Owner Data size Description
GNU 0x00000014 NT_GNU_BUILD_ID (unique build ID bitstring)
Build ID: 4a494eb578123314e6ff1caf1c8877e27004664f
Displaying notes found in: .note.ABI-tag
Owner Data size Description
GNU 0x00000010 NT_GNU_ABI_TAG (ABI version tag)
OS: Linux, ABI: 4.4.0
```
Part of #121876.
r? `@jieyouxu`
Merge `PatParam`/`PatWithOr`, and `Expr`/`Expr2021`, for a few reasons.
- It's conceptually nice, because the two pattern kinds and the two
expression kinds are very similar.
- With expressions in particular, there are several places where both
expression kinds get the same treatment.
- It removes one unreachable match arm.
- Most importantly, for #124141 I will need to introduce a new type
`MetaVarKind` that is very similar to `NonterminalKind`, but records a
couple of extra fields for expression metavars. It's nicer to have a
single `MetaVarKind::Expr` expression variant to hold those extra
fields instead of duplicating them across two variants
`MetaVarKind::{Expr,Expr2021}`. And then it makes sense for patterns
to be treated the same way, and for `NonterminalKind` to also be
treated the same way.
I also clarified the comments, because I have long found them a little
hard to understand.
rustdoc: Add support for `missing_unsafe_on_extern` feature
Follow-up of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124482.
Not sure if the `safe` keyword is supposed to be displayed or not though? For now I didn't add it in the generated doc, only `unsafe` as usual.
cc `@spastorino`
r? `@fmease`
