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
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`
### 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
Refactor confirm_builtin_call, remove partial if
Pass callee expr to `confirm_builtin_call`. This removes a partial
pattern match in `confirm_builtin_call` and the `panic` in the `else`
branch. The diff is large because of indentation changes caused by
removing the if-let.
Move check only relevant in error case out of critical path
Move the check for potentially forgotten `return` in a tail expression
of arbitrary expressions into the coercion error branch to avoid
computing unncessary coercion checks on successful code.
Follow up to #81458.
Implement NOOP_METHOD_CALL lint
Implements the beginnings of https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/67 - a lint for detecting noop method calls (e.g, calling `<&T as Clone>::clone()` when `T: !Clone`).
This PR does not fully realize the vision and has a few limitations that need to be addressed either before merging or in subsequent PRs:
* [ ] No UFCS support
* [ ] The warning message is pretty plain
* [ ] Doesn't work for `ToOwned`
The implementation uses [`Instance::resolve`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/instance/struct.Instance.html#method.resolve) which is normally later in the compiler. It seems that there are some invariants that this function relies on that we try our best to respect. For instance, it expects substitutions to have happened, which haven't yet performed, but we check first for `needs_subst` to ensure we're dealing with a monomorphic type.
Thank you to ```@davidtwco,``` ```@Aaron1011,``` and ```@wesleywiser``` for helping me at various points through out this PR ❤️.
Pass callee expr to `confirm_builtin_call`. This removes a partial
pattern match in `confirm_builtin_call` and the `panic` in the `else`
branch. The diff is large because of indentation changes caused by
removing the if-let.
Move the check for potentially forgotten `return` in a tail expression
of arbitrary expressions into the coercion error branch to avoid
computing unncessary coercion checks on successful code.
Follow up to #81458.
Revert non-power-of-two vector restriction
Removes the power of two restriction from rustc. As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/stdsimd/issues/63
r? ```@calebzulawski```
cc ```@workingjubilee``` ```@thomcc```
Add incomplete feature gate for inherent associate types.
Mentored by ``````@oli-obk``````
So far the only change is that instead of giving an automatic error, the following code compiles:
```rust
struct Foo;
impl Foo {
type Bar = isize;
}
```
The backend work to make it actually usable isn't there yet. In particular, this:
```rust
let x : Foo::Bar;
```
will give you:
```sh
error[E0223]: ambiguous associated type
--> /$RUSTC_DIR/src/test/ui/assoc-inherent.rs:15:13
|
LL | let x : Foo::Bar;
| ^^^^^^^^ help: use fully-qualified syntax: `<Foo as Trait>::Bar`
```
Move pick_by_value_method docs above function header
- Currently style triggers #81183 so we can't add `#[instrument]` to
this function.
- Having docs above the header is more consistent with the rest of the
code base.
Improve error msgs when found type is deref of expected
This improves help messages in two cases:
- When expected type is `T` and found type is `&T`, we now look through blocks
and suggest dereferencing the expression of the block, rather than the whole
block.
- In the above case, if the expression is an `&`, we not suggest removing the
`&` instead of adding `*`.
Both of these are demonstrated in the regression test. Before this patch the
first error in the test would be:
error[E0308]: `if` and `else` have incompatible types
--> test.rs:8:9
|
5 | / if true {
6 | | a
| | - expected because of this
7 | | } else {
8 | | b
| | ^ expected `usize`, found `&usize`
9 | | };
| |_____- `if` and `else` have incompatible types
|
help: consider dereferencing the borrow
|
7 | } else *{
8 | b
9 | };
|
Now:
error[E0308]: `if` and `else` have incompatible types
--> test.rs:8:9
|
5 | / if true {
6 | | a
| | - expected because of this
7 | | } else {
8 | | b
| | ^
| | |
| | expected `usize`, found `&usize`
| | help: consider dereferencing the borrow: `*b`
9 | | };
| |_____- `if` and `else` have incompatible types
The second error:
error[E0308]: `if` and `else` have incompatible types
--> test.rs:14:9
|
11 | / if true {
12 | | 1
| | - expected because of this
13 | | } else {
14 | | &1
| | ^^ expected integer, found `&{integer}`
15 | | };
| |_____- `if` and `else` have incompatible types
|
help: consider dereferencing the borrow
|
13 | } else *{
14 | &1
15 | };
|
now:
error[E0308]: `if` and `else` have incompatible types
--> test.rs:14:9
|
11 | / if true {
12 | | 1
| | - expected because of this
13 | | } else {
14 | | &1
| | ^-
| | ||
| | |help: consider removing the `&`: `1`
| | expected integer, found `&{integer}`
15 | | };
| |_____- `if` and `else` have incompatible types
Fixes#82361
---
r? ````@estebank````
fix the false 'defined here' messages
Closes#80853.
Take this code:
```rust
struct S;
fn repro_ref(thing: S) {
thing();
}
```
Previously, the error message would be this:
```
error[E0618]: expected function, found `S`
--> src/lib.rs:4:5
|
3 | fn repro_ref(thing: S) {
| ----- `S` defined here
4 | thing();
| ^^^^^--
| |
| call expression requires function
error: aborting due to previous error
```
This is incorrect as `S` is not defined in the function arguments, `thing` is defined there. With this change, the following is emitted:
```
error[E0618]: expected function, found `S`
--> $DIR/80853.rs:4:5
|
LL | fn repro_ref(thing: S) {
| ----- is of type `S`
LL | thing();
| ^^^^^--
| |
| call expression requires function
|
= note: local variable `S` is not a function
error: aborting due to previous error
```
As you can see, this error message points out that `thing` is of type `S` and later in a note, that `S` is not a function. This change does seem like a downside for some error messages. Take this example:
```
LL | struct Empty2;
| -------------- is of type `Empty2`
```
As you can see, the error message shows that the definition of `Empty2` is of type `Empty2`. Although this isn't wrong, it would be more helpful if it would say something like this (which was there previously):
```
LL | struct Empty2;
| -------------- `Empty2` defined here
```
If there is a better way of doing this, where the `Empty2` example would stay the same as without this change, please inform me.
**Update: This is now fixed**
CC `@camelid`
- Currently style triggers #81183 so we can't add `#[instrument]` to
this function.
- Having docs above the header is more consistent with the rest of the
code base.
This improves help messages in two cases:
- When expected type is `T` and found type is `&T`, we now look through blocks
and suggest dereferencing the expression of the block, rather than the whole
block.
- In the above case, if the expression is an `&`, we not suggest removing the
`&` instead of adding `*`.
Both of these are demonstrated in the regression test. Before this patch the
first error in the test would be:
error[E0308]: `if` and `else` have incompatible types
--> test.rs:8:9
|
5 | / if true {
6 | | a
| | - expected because of this
7 | | } else {
8 | | b
| | ^ expected `usize`, found `&usize`
9 | | };
| |_____- `if` and `else` have incompatible types
|
help: consider dereferencing the borrow
|
7 | } else *{
8 | b
9 | };
|
Now:
error[E0308]: `if` and `else` have incompatible types
--> test.rs:8:9
|
5 | / if true {
6 | | a
| | - expected because of this
7 | | } else {
8 | | b
| | ^
| | |
| | expected `usize`, found `&usize`
| | help: consider dereferencing the borrow: `*b`
9 | | };
| |_____- `if` and `else` have incompatible types
The second error:
error[E0308]: `if` and `else` have incompatible types
--> test.rs:14:9
|
11 | / if true {
12 | | 1
| | - expected because of this
13 | | } else {
14 | | &1
| | ^^ expected integer, found `&{integer}`
15 | | };
| |_____- `if` and `else` have incompatible types
|
help: consider dereferencing the borrow
|
13 | } else *{
14 | &1
15 | };
|
now:
error[E0308]: `if` and `else` have incompatible types
--> test.rs:14:9
|
11 | / if true {
12 | | 1
| | - expected because of this
13 | | } else {
14 | | &1
| | ^-
| | ||
| | |help: consider removing the `&`: `1`
| | expected integer, found `&{integer}`
15 | | };
| |_____- `if` and `else` have incompatible types
Fixes#82361
Suggest `return`ing tail expressions that match return type
Some newcomers are confused by the behavior of tail expressions,
interpreting that "leaving out the `;` makes it the return value".
To help them go in the right direction, suggest using `return` instead
when applicable.
Improve suggestion for tuple struct pattern matching errors.
Closes#80174
This change allows numbers to be parsed as field names when pattern matching on structs, which allows us to provide better error messages when tuple structs are matched using a struct pattern.
r? ``@estebank``
Make "missing field" error message more natural
```rust
struct A {
x: i32,
y: i32,
z: i32,
}
fn main() {
A { };
}
```
```
error[E0063]: missing fields `x`, `y`, `z` in initializer of `A`
--> src/main.rs:8:5
|
8 | A { };
| ^ missing `x`, `y`, `z`
```
This error is now:
```
error[E0063]: missing fields `x`, `y` and `z` in initializer of `A`
--> src/main.rs:8:5
|
8 | A { };
| ^ missing `x`, `y` and `z`
```
I thought it looked nicer and more natural this way. Also, if there is >3 fields missing, there is an "and" as well ("missing \`x\`, \`y\`, \`z\` *and* 1 other field"), but for <=3 there is not. As such it improves consistency too.
As for the implementation, originally I ended up with a chunky `push_str` algorithm but then I figured I could just do the formatting manually since it's just 3 field names at maximum. It is comparatively readable.
As a sidenote, one thing I was wondering about is, isn't there more cases where you have a list of things like field names? Maybe this whole thing can at some point later be made into a more general function to be used in multiple areas.
When a tail expression isn't unit, we previously always suggested adding
a trailing `;` to turn it into a statement. This suggestion isn't
appropriate for any expression that doesn't have side-effects, as the
user will have likely wanted to call something else or do something with
the resulting value, instead of just discarding it.
Some newcomers are confused by the behavior of tail expressions,
interpreting that "leaving out the `;` makes it the return value".
To help them go in the right direction, suggest using `return` instead
when applicable.
