Implement RFC 2945: "C-unwind" ABI
## Implement RFC 2945: "C-unwind" ABI
This branch implements [RFC 2945]. The tracking issue for this RFC is #74990.
The feature gate for the issue is `#![feature(c_unwind)]`.
This RFC was created as part of the ffi-unwind project group tracked at rust-lang/lang-team#19.
### Changes
Further details will be provided in commit messages, but a high-level overview
of the changes follows:
* A boolean `unwind` payload is added to the `C`, `System`, `Stdcall`,
and `Thiscall` variants, marking whether unwinding across FFI boundaries is
acceptable. The cases where each of these variants' `unwind` member is true
correspond with the `C-unwind`, `system-unwind`, `stdcall-unwind`, and
`thiscall-unwind` ABI strings introduced in RFC 2945 [3].
* This commit adds a `c_unwind` feature gate for the new ABI strings.
Tests for this feature gate are included in `src/test/ui/c-unwind/`, which
ensure that this feature gate works correctly for each of the new ABIs.
A new language features entry in the unstable book is added as well.
* We adjust the `rustc_middle::ty::layout::fn_can_unwind` function,
used to compute whether or not a `FnAbi` object represents a function that
should be able to unwind when `panic=unwind` is in use.
* Changes are also made to
`rustc_mir_build::build::should_abort_on_panic` so that the function ABI is
used to determind whether it should abort, assuming that the `panic=unwind`
strategy is being used, and no explicit unwind attribute was provided.
[RFC 2945]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2945-c-unwind-abi.md
Remove the -Zinsert-sideeffect
This removes all of the code we had in place to work-around LLVM's
handling of forward progress. From this removal excluded is a workaround
where we'd insert a `sideeffect` into clearly infinite loops such as
`loop {}`. This code remains conditionally effective when the LLVM
version is earlier than 12.0, which fixed the forward progress related
miscompilations at their root.
This removes all of the code we had in place to work-around LLVM's
handling of forward progress. From this removal excluded is a workaround
where we'd insert a `sideeffect` into clearly infinite loops such as
`loop {}`. This code remains conditionally effective when the LLVM
version is earlier than 12.0, which fixed the forward progress related
miscompilations at their root.
Store HIR attributes in a side table
Same idea as #72015 but for attributes.
The objective is to reduce incr-comp invalidations due to modified attributes.
Notably, those due to modified doc comments.
Implementation:
- collect attributes during AST->HIR lowering, in `LocalDefId -> ItemLocalId -> &[Attributes]` nested tables;
- access the attributes through a `hir_owner_attrs` query;
- local refactorings to use this access;
- remove `attrs` from HIR data structures one-by-one.
Change in behaviour:
- the HIR visitor traverses all attributes at once instead of parent-by-parent;
- attribute arrays are sometimes duplicated: for statements and variant constructors;
- as a consequence, attributes are marked as used after unused-attribute lint emission to avoid duplicate lints.
~~Current bug: the lint level is not correctly applied in `std::backtrace_rs`, triggering an unused attribute warning on `#![no_std]`. I welcome suggestions.~~
Don't hardcode the `v1` prelude in diagnostics, to allow for new preludes.
Instead of looking for `std::prelude::v1`, this changes the two places where that was hardcoded to look for `std::prelude::<anything>` instead.
This is needed for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/82217.
r? `@estebank`
Bump tracing-tree dependency
This bump fixes two small rendering things that were annoying me:
* The first level didn't have an opening line
* When wraparound happens, there was no warning, the levels just disappeared. Now there is a line that shows that wraparound is happening
See https://github.com/davidbarsky/tracing-tree/pull/31/files for how the look changes
Add Option::get_or_default
Tracking issue: #82901
The original issue is #55042, which was closed, but for an invalid reason (see discussion there). Opening this to reconsider (I hope that's okay). It seems like the only gap for `Option` being "entry-like".
I ran into a need for this method where I had a `Vec<Option<MyData>>` and wanted to do `vec[n].get_or_default().my_data_method()`. Using an `Option` as an inner component of a data structure is probably where the need for this will normally arise.
Stabilize `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint
This makes it possible to override the level of the `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn`, as proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71668#issuecomment-729770896.
Tracking issue: #71668
r? ```@nikomatsakis``` cc ```@SimonSapin``` ```@RalfJung```
# Stabilization report
This is a stabilization report for `#![feature(unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn)]`.
## Summary
Currently, the body of unsafe functions is an unsafe block, i.e. you can perform unsafe operations inside.
The `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint, stabilized here, can be used to change this behavior, so performing unsafe operations in unsafe functions requires an unsafe block.
For now, the lint is allow-by-default, which means that this PR does not change anything without overriding the lint level.
For more information, see [RFC 2585](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2585-unsafe-block-in-unsafe-fn.md)
### Example
```rust
// An `unsafe fn` for demonstration purposes.
// Calling this is an unsafe operation.
unsafe fn unsf() {}
// #[allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)] by default,
// the behavior of `unsafe fn` is unchanged
unsafe fn allowed() {
// Here, no `unsafe` block is needed to
// perform unsafe operations...
unsf();
// ...and any `unsafe` block is considered
// unused and is warned on by the compiler.
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[warn(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn warned() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause the compiler to emit a warning.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn denied() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause a compilation error.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
```
### Add debug assertion to check `AbiDatas` ordering
This makes a small alteration to `Abi::index`, so that we include a
debug assertion to check that the index we are returning corresponds
with the same abi in our data array.
This will help prevent ordering bugs in the future, which can
manifest in rather strange errors.
### Using exhaustive ABI matches
This slightly modifies the changes from our previous commits,
favoring exhaustive matches in place of `_ => ...` fall-through
arms.
This should help with maintenance in the future, when additional
ABI's are added, or when existing ABI's are modified.
### List all `-unwind` ABI's in unstable book
This updates the `c-unwind` page in the unstable book to list _all_
of the other ABI strings that are introduced by this feature gate.
Now, all of the ABI's specified by RFC 2945 are shown.
Co-authored-by: Amanieu d'Antras <amanieu@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Niko Matsakis <niko@alum.mit.edu>
### Changes
This commit implements unwind ABI's, specified in RFC 2945.
We adjust the `rustc_middle::ty::layout::fn_can_unwind` function,
used to compute whether or not a `FnAbi` object represents a
function that should be able to unwind when `panic=unwind` is in
use.
Changes are also made to
`rustc_mir_build::build::should_abort_on_panic` so that the
function ABI is used to determind whether it should abort, assuming
that the `panic=unwind` strategy is being used, and no explicit
unwind attribute was provided.
### Tests
Unit tests, checking that the behavior is correct for `C-unwind`,
`stdcall-unwind`, `system-unwind`, and `thiscall-unwind`, are
included. These alternative `unwind` ABI strings are specified in
RFC 2945, in the "_Other `unwind` ABI strings_" section.
Additionally, a test case is included to assert that the LLVM IR
generated for an external function defined with the `C-unwind` ABI
will be appropriately labeled with the `nounwind` LLVM attribute
when the `panic=abort` compilation flag is used.
### Ignore Directives
This commit uses `ignore-*` directives in two of our `*-unwind` ABI
test cases.
Specifically, the `stdcall-unwind` and `thiscall-unwind` test cases
ignore architectures that do not support `stdcall` and `thiscall`,
respectively.
These directives are cribbed from
`src/test/ui/c-variadic/variadic-ffi-1.rs` for `stdcall`, and
`src/test/ui/extern/extern-thiscall.rs` for `thiscall`.
### Overview
This commit begins the implementation work for RFC 2945. For more
information, see the rendered RFC [1] and tracking issue [2].
A boolean `unwind` payload is added to the `C`, `System`, `Stdcall`,
and `Thiscall` variants, marking whether unwinding across FFI
boundaries is acceptable. The cases where each of these variants'
`unwind` member is true correspond with the `C-unwind`,
`system-unwind`, `stdcall-unwind`, and `thiscall-unwind` ABI strings
introduced in RFC 2945 [3].
### Feature Gate and Unstable Book
This commit adds a `c_unwind` feature gate for the new ABI strings.
Tests for this feature gate are included in `src/test/ui/c-unwind/`,
which ensure that this feature gate works correctly for each of the
new ABIs.
A new language features entry in the unstable book is added as well.
### Further Work To Be Done
This commit does not proceed to implement the new unwinding ABIs,
and is intentionally scoped specifically to *defining* the ABIs and
their feature flag.
### One Note on Test Churn
This will lead to some test churn, in re-blessing hash tests, as the
deleted comment in `src/librustc_target/spec/abi.rs` mentioned,
because we can no longer guarantee the ordering of the `Abi`
variants.
While this is a downside, this decision was made bearing in mind
that RFC 2945 states the following, in the "Other `unwind` Strings"
section [3]:
> More unwind variants of existing ABI strings may be introduced,
> with the same semantics, without an additional RFC.
Adding a new variant for each of these cases, rather than specifying
a payload for a given ABI, would quickly become untenable, and make
working with the `Abi` enum prone to mistakes.
This approach encodes the unwinding information *into* a given ABI,
to account for the future possibility of other `-unwind` ABI
strings.
### Ignore Directives
`ignore-*` directives are used in two of our `*-unwind` ABI test
cases.
Specifically, the `stdcall-unwind` and `thiscall-unwind` test cases
ignore architectures that do not support `stdcall` and
`thiscall`, respectively.
These directives are cribbed from
`src/test/ui/c-variadic/variadic-ffi-1.rs` for `stdcall`, and
`src/test/ui/extern/extern-thiscall.rs` for `thiscall`.
This would otherwise fail on some targets, see:
fcf697f902
### Footnotes
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2945-c-unwind-abi.md
[2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74990
[3]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2945-c-unwind-abi.md#other-unwind-abi-strings
