Don't fire `OPAQUE_HIDDEN_INFERRED_BOUND` on sized return of AFIT
Conceptually, we should probably not fire `OPAQUE_HIDDEN_INFERRED_BOUND` for methods like:
```
trait Foo { async fn bar() -> Self; }
```
Even though we technically cannot prove that `Self: Sized`, which is one of the item bounds of the `Output` type in the `-> impl Future<Output = Sized>` from the async desugaring.
This is somewhat justifiable along the same lines as how we allow regular methods to return `-> Self` even though `Self` isn't sized.
Fixes#113538
(side-note: some days i wonder if we should just remove the `OPAQUE_HIDDEN_INFERRED_BOUND` lint... it does make me sad that we have non-well-formed types in signatures, though.)
privacy: Refactor top-level visiting in `NamePrivacyVisitor`
Full hierarchical visiting (`nested_filter::All`) is not necessary, visiting all item-likes in isolation is enough.
Tracking current item is not necessary, passing any `HirId` with the same parent module to `adjust_ident_and_get_scope` is enough.
Follow up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120284.
Remove special-case handling of `vec.split_off(0)`
#76682 added special handling to `Vec::split_off` for the case where `at == 0`. Instead of copying the vector's contents into a freshly-allocated vector and returning it, the special-case code steals the old vector's allocation, and replaces it with a new (empty) buffer with the same capacity.
That eliminates the need to copy the existing elements, but comes at a surprising cost, as seen in #119913. The returned vector's capacity is no longer determined by the size of its contents (as would be expected for a freshly-allocated vector), and instead uses the full capacity of the old vector.
In cases where the capacity is large but the size is small, that results in a much larger capacity than would be expected from reading the documentation of `split_off`. This is especially bad when `split_off` is called in a loop (to recycle a buffer), and the returned vectors have a wide variety of lengths.
I believe it's better to remove the special-case code, and treat `at == 0` just like any other value:
- The current documentation states that `split_off` returns a “newly allocated vector”, which is not actually true in the current implementation when `at == 0`.
- If the value of `at` could be non-zero at runtime, then the caller has already agreed to the cost of a full memcpy of the taken elements in the general case. Avoiding that copy would be nice if it were close to free, but the different handling of capacity means that it is not.
- If the caller specifically wants to avoid copying in the case where `at == 0`, they can easily implement that behaviour themselves using `mem::replace`.
Fixes#119913.
interpret: project_downcast: do not ICE for uninhabited variants
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120337
This assertion was already under discussion for a bit; I think the [example](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120337#issuecomment-1911076292) `@tmiasko` found is the final nail in the coffin. One could argue maybe MIR building should read the discriminant before projecting, but even then MIR optimizations should be allowed to remove that read, so the downcast should still not ICE. Maybe the downcast should be UB, but in this example UB already arises earlier when a value of type `E` is constructed.
r? `@oli-obk`
Don't manually resolve async closures in `rustc_resolve`
There's a comment here that talks about doing this "[so] closure [args] are detected as upvars rather than normal closure arg usages", but we do upvar analysis on the HIR now:
cd6d8f2a04/compiler/rustc_passes/src/upvars.rs (L21-L29)
Removing this ad-hoc logic makes it so that `async |x: &str|` now introduces an implicit binder, like regular closures.
r? ```@oli-obk```
Builtin macros effectively have implicit #[collapse_debuginfo(yes)]
If collapse_debuginfo attribute for builtin macro is not specified explicitly, it will be effectively set to `#[collapse_debuginfo(yes)]`.
Split assembly tests for ELF and MachO
On ELF, the text section is opened with ".text", on MachO with ".section __TEXT,__text".
Previously, on ELF this test was actually matching a GNU note section, which is no longer emitted on Solaris starting with LLVM 18.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120105.
r? ```@davidtwco```
Specialize `Bytes` on `StdinLock<'_>`
I noticed recently, while profiling a little project, that I was spending a lot of time reading from stdin (even with locking). I was using the `.bytes()` iterator adaptor; I figured, since `StdinLock` is a `BufReader` internally, it would work just as fast. But this is not the case, as `Bytes` is only specialized for the raw `BufReader`, and not the `StdinLock`/`MutexGuard` wrapper. Performance improved significantly when I wrapped the lock in a new `BufReader`, but I was still a bit sore about the double buffer indirection.
This PR attempts to specialize it, by simply calling the already specialized implementation on `BufReader`.
Initial implementation of `str::from_raw_parts[_mut]`
ACP (accepted): rust-lang/libs-team#167
Tracking issue: #119206
Thanks to ``@Kixiron`` for previous work on this (#107207)
``@rustbot`` label +T-libs-api -T-libs
r? ``@thomcc``
Closes#107207.
Add the `min_exhaustive_patterns` feature gate
## Motivation
Pattern-matching on empty types is tricky around unsafe code. For that reason, current stable rust conservatively requires arms for empty types in all but the simplest case. It has long been the intention to allow omitting empty arms when it's safe to do so. The [`exhaustive_patterns`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51085) feature allows the omission of all empty arms, but hasn't been stabilized because that was deemed dangerous around unsafe code.
## Proposal
This feature aims to stabilize an uncontroversial subset of exhaustive_patterns. Namely: when `min_exhaustive_patterns` is enabled and the data we're matching on is guaranteed to be valid by rust's operational semantics, then we allow empty arms to be omitted. E.g.:
```rust
let x: Result<T, !> = foo();
match x { // ok
Ok(y) => ...,
}
let Ok(y) = x; // ok
```
If the place is not guaranteed to hold valid data (namely ptr dereferences, ref dereferences (conservatively) and union field accesses), then we keep stable behavior i.e. we (usually) require arms for the empty cases.
```rust
unsafe {
let ptr: *const Result<u32, !> = ...;
match *ptr {
Ok(x) => { ... }
Err(_) => { ... } // still required
}
}
let foo: Result<u32, &!> = ...;
match foo {
Ok(x) => { ... }
Err(&_) => { ... } // still required because of the dereference
}
unsafe {
let ptr: *const ! = ...;
match *ptr {} // already allowed on stable
}
```
Note that we conservatively consider that a valid reference can point to invalid data, hence we don't allow arms of type `&!` and similar cases to be omitted. This could eventually change depending on [opsem decisions](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/413). Whenever opsem is undecided on a case, we conservatively keep today's stable behavior.
I proposed this behavior in the [`never_patterns`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118155) feature gate but it makes sense on its own and could be stabilized more quickly. The two proposals nicely complement each other.
## Unresolved Questions
Part of the question is whether this requires an RFC. I'd argue this doesn't need one since there is no design question beyond the intent to omit unreachable patterns, but I'm aware the problem can be framed in ways that require design (I'm thinking of the [original never patterns proposal](https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2018/08/13/never-patterns-exhaustive-matching-and-uninhabited-types-oh-my/), which would frame this behavior as "auto-nevering" happening).
EDIT: I initially proposed a future-compatibility lint as part of this feature, I don't anymore.
Remove unused/unnecessary features
~~The bulk of the actual code changes here is replacing try blocks with equivalent closures. I'm not entirely sure that's a good idea since it may have perf impact, happy to revert if that's the case/the change is unwanted.~~
I also removed a lot of `recursion_limit = "256"` since everything seems to build fine without that and most don't have any comment justifying it.
