* Unify the two maps in memory to store the allocation and its kind together.
* Share the handling of statics between CTFE and miri: The miri engine always
uses "lazy" `AllocType::Static` when encountering a static. Acessing that
static invokes CTFE (no matter the machine). The machine only has any
influence when writing to a static, which CTFE outright rejects (but miri
makes a copy-on-write).
* Add an `AllocId` to by-ref consts so miri can use them as operands without
making copies.
* Move responsibilities around for the `eval_fn_call` machine hook: The hook
just has to find the MIR (or entirely take care of everything); pushing the
new stack frame is taken care of by the miri engine.
* Expose the intrinsics and lang items implemented by CTFE so miri does not
have to reimplement them.
fix NLL ICEs
Custom type-ops reuse some of the query machinery -- but while query results are canonicalized after they are constructed, custom type ops are not, and hence we have to resolve the type variables to avoid an ICE here.
Also, use the type-op machinery for implied outlives bounds.
Fixes#53568Fixes#52992Fixes#53680
Move with_globals setup from run_compiler to run
An alternative to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53526
Note this breaks some miri stuff and clippy since they call `run_compiler` directly, and they now need to also call `with_globals ` cc @rust-lang/dev-tools
r? @oli-obk
change the default linker of the ARM Cortex-M targets
to rust-lld so users won't need an external linker to build programs
This will break nightly builds.
We discussed this within the embedded WG and with the embedded community in
rust-embedded/wg#160 and there was consensus in that this breaking change is
worthwhile and that we should do it now before it becomes impossible to do
without breaking stable builds.
We have already written an announcement (see rust-embedded/wg#196) that explains
the breakage and instructs the users how to fix their builds. The TL;DR is that
they can switch to the old behavior by passing the `-C linker` flag to rustc.
We'll post the announcement as soon as this change makes into nightly.
closesrust-embedded/wg#160
r? @alexcrichton
rustc: Continue to tweak "std internal symbols"
In investigating [an issue][1] with `panic_implementation` defined in an
executable that's optimized I once again got to rethinking a bit about the
`rustc_std_internal_symbol` attribute as well as weak lang items. We've sort of
been non-stop tweaking these items ever since their inception, and this
continues to the trend.
The crux of the bug was that in the reachability we have a [different branch][2]
for non-library builds which meant that weak lang items (and std internal
symbols) weren't considered reachable, causing them to get eliminiated by
ThinLTO passes. The fix was to basically tweak that branch to consider these
symbols to ensure that they're propagated all the way to the linker.
Along the way I've attempted to erode the distinction between std internal
symbols and weak lang items by having weak lang items automatically configure
fields of `CodegenFnAttrs`. That way most code no longer even considers weak
lang items and they're simply considered normal functions with attributes about
the ABI.
In the end this fixes the final comment of #51342
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51342#issuecomment-414368019
[2]: 35bf1ae257/src/librustc/middle/reachable.rs (L225-L238)
In investigating [an issue][1] with `panic_implementation` defined in an
executable that's optimized I once again got to rethinking a bit about the
`rustc_std_internal_symbol` attribute as well as weak lang items. We've sort of
been non-stop tweaking these items ever since their inception, and this
continues to the trend.
The crux of the bug was that in the reachability we have a [different branch][2]
for non-library builds which meant that weak lang items (and std internal
symbols) weren't considered reachable, causing them to get eliminiated by
ThinLTO passes. The fix was to basically tweak that branch to consider these
symbols to ensure that they're propagated all the way to the linker.
Along the way I've attempted to erode the distinction between std internal
symbols and weak lang items by having weak lang items automatically configure
fields of `CodegenFnAttrs`. That way most code no longer even considers weak
lang items and they're simply considered normal functions with attributes about
the ABI.
In the end this fixes the final comment of #51342
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51342#issuecomment-414368019
[2]: 35bf1ae257/src/librustc/middle/reachable.rs (L225-L238)
Include missing tools in the manifest and mark them as unavailable
This PR changes the `build-manifest` tool to always include the missing components in the manifest, marking them as `available = false`. This blocks rustup from updating to a different nightly if the component is installed.
The code builds and _should_ be correct, but I don't know a way to test the changes locally.
r? @alexcrichton
cc @kennytm https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/rustup.rs/issues/1486
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #53043 (Improve unstable message display)
- #53428 (libtest terse format: show how far in we are)
- #53626 (Automatically expand a section even after page load)
- #53651 (Add struct keyword doc)
- #53706 (rustdoc: Fix gap on section anchor symbol when hovering.)
Failed merges:
- #53472 (Use FxHash{Map,Set} instead of the default Hash{Map,Set} everywhere in rustc.)
r? @ghost
In case that it is statically known that the OS doesn't support
`getrandom` (non-Linux) or becomes clear at runtime that `getrandom`
isn't available (`ENOSYS`), the opened fd ("/dev/urandom") isn't closed
after the function, so that future calls can reuse it. This saves
repeated `open`/`close` system calls at the cost of one permanently open
fd.
Additionally, this skips the initial zero-length `getrandom` call and
directly hands the user buffer to the operating system, saving one
`getrandom` syscall.
At least the incremental compilation code, and a few other places in the
compiler, require the CrateMetadata for a loaded target crate to contain a
valid DefIdTable for the DefIds in the target.
Previously, the CrateMetadata for a proc macro contained the crate's
"host" DefIdTable, which is of course incompatible with the "target"
DefIdTable, causing ICEs. This creates a DefIdTable that properly refers
to the "proc macro" DefIds.
Fixes#49482.
Structs and enums can both be non-exhaustive, with a very different
meaning. This PR splits `is_non_exhaustive` to 2 separate functions - 1
for structs, and another for enums, and fixes the places that got the
usage confused.
Fixes#53549.
libtest terse format: show how far in we are
So for example `./x.py test src/libcore` looks like
```
running 881 tests
.................................................................................................... 100/881
.................................................................................................... 200/881
.................................................................................................... 300/881
.............................................................i.i.................................... 400/881
.................................................................................................... 500/881
.................................................................................................... 600/881
.................................................................................................... 700/881
.................................................................................................... 800/881
.................................................................................
test result: ok. 879 passed; 0 failed; 2 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out
```
When I am waiting for 3500 ui tests to complete, I am often missing some sense of how far in these 3500 it is.
Getting the total count in `write_run_start` is a bit hacky; I did that to not change the "public interface" of the formatters. I can also give them an extra argument in their constructor so that they know from the beginning how many tests there will be. Would you prefer that? (I think I would, but I wanted to get feedback first.)
