Add tests for two untested cases of placeholder relations
During work on #130227, I discovered several situations not covered by any previously existing UI test. This commit introudces tests to cover that.
r? lcnr
Improve diagnostics for pointer arithmetic += and -= (fixes#137391)
**Description**:
This PR improves the diagnostic message for cases where a binary assignment operation like `ptr += offset` or `ptr -= offset` is attempted on `*mut T`. These operations are not allowed, and the compiler previously suggested calling `.add()` or `.wrapping_add()`, which is misleading if not assigned.
This PR updates the diagnostics to suggest assigning the result of `.wrapping_add()` or `.wrapping_sub()` back to the pointer, e.g.:
**Examples**
For this code
```rust
let mut arr = [0u8; 10];
let mut ptr = arr.as_mut_ptr();
ptr += 2;
```
it will say:
```rust
10 | ptr += 2;
| ---^^^^^
| |
| cannot use `+=` on type `*mut u8`
|
help: consider replacing `ptr += offset` with `ptr = ptr.wrapping_add(offset)` or `ptr.add(offset)`
|
10 - ptr += 2;
10 + ptr = ptr.wrapping_add(2);
```
**Related issue**: #137391
cc `@nabijaczleweli` for context (issue author)
Construct OutputType using macro and print [=FILENAME] help info
Closes#139805
Use define_output_types to define variants of OutputType, as well as refactor all of its methods for clarity. This way no variant is missed when pattern matching or output help messages.
On top of that, I optimized for `emit` help messages.
r? ```@jieyouxu```
jsondocck: Require command is at start of line
In one place we use `///``@``` instead of `//``@`.`` The test-runner allowed it, but it probably shouldn't. Ran into by ``@lolbinarycat`` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132748#issuecomment-2816469322:
```
error: unknown disambiguator `?(`
##[error] --> /checkout/tests/rustdoc-json/fns/return_type_alias.rs:3:25
|
3 | ///@ set foo = "$.index[?(``@.name=='Foo')].id"``
| ^^
|
```
Maybe it's also worth erroring on this like we added in #137103
r? ``@GuillaumeGomez``
rustdoc-json: Improve test for auto-trait impls
The TODO is fixable now due-to #138763. While I was here I realized there's probably a a few more things we should also test.
r? ```@GuillaumeGomez```
Fix error when an intra doc link is trying to resolve an empty associated item
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140026.
Assigning ```@nnethercote``` since they're the one who wrote the initial change.
I updated rustdoc code instead of compiler's because I think it makes more sense that the caller ensures on their side that the name they're looking for isn't empty.
r? ```@nnethercote```
Advent of `tests/ui` (misc cleanups and improvements) [4/N]
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of #133895.
### Review advice
- Best reviewed commit-by-commit.
- I can squash commits before merge, commits are separate to make it easier to review.
Stabilize `naked_functions`
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
request for stabilization on tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957#issuecomment-2539270352
reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1689
# Request for Stabilization
Two years later, we're ready to try this again. Even though this issue is already marked as having passed FCP, given the amount of time that has passed and the changes in implementation strategy, we should follow the process again.
## Summary
The `naked_functions` feature has two main parts: the `#[naked]` function attribute, and the `naked_asm!` macro.
An example of a naked function:
```rust
const THREE: usize = 3;
#[naked]
pub extern "sysv64" fn add_n(number: usize) -> usize {
// SAFETY: the validity of the used registers
// is guaranteed according to the "sysv64" ABI
unsafe {
core::arch::naked_asm!(
"add rdi, {}",
"mov rax, rdi",
"ret",
const THREE,
)
}
}
```
When the `#[naked]` attribute is applied to a function, the compiler won't emit a [function prologue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_prologue_and_epilogue) or epilogue when generating code for this function. This attribute is analogous to [`__attribute__((naked))`](https://developer.arm.com/documentation/100067/0608/Compiler-specific-Function--Variable--and-Type-Attributes/--attribute----naked---function-attribute) in C. The use of this feature allows the programmer to have precise control over the assembly that is generated for a given function.
The body of a naked function must consist of a single `naked_asm!` invocation, a heavily restricted variant of the `asm!` macro: the only legal operands are `const` and `sym`, and the only legal options are `raw` and `att_syntax`. In lieu of specifying operands, the `naked_asm!` within a naked function relies on the function's calling convention to determine the validity of registers.
## Documentation
The Rust Reference: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1689
(Previous PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1153)
## Tests
* [tests/run-make/naked-symbol-visiblity](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn) verifies that `pub`, `#[no_mangle]` and `#[linkage = "..."]` work correctly for naked functions
* [tests/codegen/naked-fn](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn) has tests for function alignment, use of generics, and validates the exact assembly output on linux, macos, windows and thumb
* [tests/ui/asm/naked-*](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/tests/ui/asm) tests for incompatible attributes, generating errors around incorrect use of `naked_asm!`, etc
## Interaction with other (unstable) features
### [fn_align](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82232)
Combining `#[naked]` with `#[repr(align(N))]` works well, and is tested e.g. here
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn/aligned.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/codegen/naked-fn/min-function-alignment.rs
It's tested extensively because we do need to explicitly support the `repr(align)` attribute (and make sure we e.g. don't mistake powers of two for number of bytes).
## History
This feature was originally proposed in [RFC 1201](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1201), filed on 2015-07-10 and accepted on 2016-03-21. Support for this feature was added in [#32410](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/32410), landing on 2016-03-23. Development languished for several years as it was realized that the semantics given in RFC 1201 were insufficiently specific. To address this, a minimal subset of naked functions was specified by [RFC 2972](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2972), filed on 2020-08-07 and accepted on 2021-11-16. Prior to the acceptance of RFC 2972, all of the stricter behavior specified by RFC 2972 was implemented as a series of warn-by-default lints that would trigger on existing uses of the `naked` attribute; these lints became hard errors in [#93153](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93153) on 2022-01-22. As a result, today RFC 2972 has completely superseded RFC 1201 in describing the semantics of the `naked` attribute.
More recently, the `naked_asm!` macro was added to replace the earlier use of a heavily restricted `asm!` invocation. The `naked_asm!` name is clearer in error messages, and provides a place for documenting the specific requirements of inline assembly in naked functions.
The implementation strategy was changed to emitting a global assembly block. In effect, an extern function
```rust
extern "C" fn foo() {
core::arch::naked_asm!("ret")
}
```
is emitted as something similar to
```rust
core::arch::global_asm!(
"foo:",
"ret"
);
extern "C" {
fn foo();
}
```
The codegen approach was chosen over the llvm naked function attribute because:
- the rust compiler can guarantee the behavior (no sneaky additional instructions, no inlining, etc.)
- behavior is the same on all backends (llvm, cranelift, gcc, etc)
Finally, there is now an allow list of compatible attributes on naked functions, so that e.g. `#[inline]` is rejected with an error. The `#[target_feature]` attribute on naked functions was later made separately unstable, because implementing it is complex and we did not want to block naked functions themselves on how target features work on them. See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138568.
relevant PRs for these recent changes
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127853
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128651
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128004
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138570
-
### Various historical notes
#### `noreturn`
[RFC 2972](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2972-constrained-naked.md) mentions that naked functions
> must have a body which contains only a single asm!() statement which:
> iii. must contain the noreturn option.
Instead of `asm!`, the current implementation mandates that the body contain a single `naked_asm!` statement. The `naked_asm!` macro is a heavily restricted version of the `asm!` macro, making it easier to talk about and document the rules of assembly in naked functions and give dedicated error messages.
For `naked_asm!`, the behavior of the `asm!`'s `noreturn` option is implicit. The `noreturn` option means that it is UB for control flow to fall through the end of the assembly block. With `asm!`, this option is usually used for blocks that diverge (and thus have no return and can be typed as `!`). With `naked_asm!`, the intent is different: usually naked funtions do return, but they must do so from within the assembly block. The `noreturn` option was used so that the compiler would not itself also insert a `ret` instruction at the very end.
#### padding / `ud2`
A `naked_asm!` block that violates the safety assumption that control flow must not fall through the end of the assembly block is UB. Because no return instruction is emitted, whatever bytes follow the naked function will be executed, resulting in truly undefined behavior. There has been discussion whether rustc should emit an invalid instruction (e.g. `ud2` on x86) after the `naked_asm!` block to at least fail early in the case of an invalid `naked_asm!`. It was however decided that it is more useful to guarantee that `#[naked]` functions NEVER contain any instructions besides those in the `naked_asm!` block.
# unresolved questions
None
r? ``@Amanieu``
I've validated the tests on x86_64 and aarch64
Relocate tests in `tests/ui`
Part of #133895
Moved tests from a top-level directory into a more appropriate subdirectory.
If there is anything else that could be improved, please let me know!
r? jieyouxu
Don't ICE on pending obligations from deep normalization in a loop
See the comment I left inline in `compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/normalize.rs`.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133868
r? lcnr
simd intrinsics with mask: accept unsigned integer masks, and fix some of the errors
It's not clear at all why the mask would have to be signed, it is anyway interpreted bitwise. The backend should just make sure that works no matter the surface-level type; our LLVM backend already does this correctly. The note of "the mask may be widened, which only has the correct behavior for signed integers" explains... nothing? Why can't the code do the widening correctly? If necessary, just cast to the signed type first...
Also while we are at it, fix the errors. For simd_masked_load/store, the errors talked about the "third argument" but they meant the first argument (the mask is the first argument there). They also used the wrong type for `expected_element`.
I have extremely low confidence in the GCC part of this PR.
See [discussion on Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/257879-project-portable-simd/topic/On.20the.20sign.20of.20masks)
Do not remove trivial `SwitchInt` in analysis MIR
This PR ensures that we don't prematurely remove trivial `SwitchInt` terminators which affects both the borrow-checking and runtime semantics (i.e. UB) of the code. Previously the `SimplifyCfg` optimization was removing `SwitchInt` terminators when they was "trivial", i.e. when all arms branched to the same basic block, even if that `SwitchInt` terminator had the side-effect of reading an operand which (for example) may not be initialized or may point to an invalid place in memory.
This behavior is unlike all other optimizations, which are only applied after "analysis" (i.e. borrow-checking) is finished, and which Miri disables to make sure the compiler doesn't silently remove UB.
Fixing this code "breaks" (i.e. unmasks) code that used to borrow-check but no longer does, like:
```rust
fn foo() {
let x;
let (0 | _) = x;
}
```
This match expression should perform a read because `_` does not shadow the `0` literal pattern, and the compiler should have to read the match scrutinee to compare it to 0. I've checked that this behavior does not actually manifest in practice via a crater run which came back clean: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139042#issuecomment-2767436367
As a side-note, it may be tempting to suggest that this is actually a good thing or that we should preserve this behavior. If we wanted to make this work (i.e. trivially optimize out reads from matches that are redundant like `0 | _`), then we should be enabling this behavior *after* fixing this. However, I think it's kinda unprincipled, and for example other variations of the code don't even work today, e.g.:
```rust
fn foo() {
let x;
let (0.. | _) = x;
}
```
Clean UI tests 4 of n
Cleaned up some tests that have `issue` in the title. I kept the commits to be one per "`issue`" cleanup/rename to make it easier to check. I can rebase to one commit once the changes are approved.
Related Issues:
#73494#133895
r? jieyouxu
Don't canonicalize crate paths
When printing paths in diagnostic we should favour printing the paths that were passed in rather than resolving all symlinks.
This PR changes the form of the crate path but it should only really affect diagnostics as filesystem functions won't care which path is used. The uncanonicalized path was already used as a fallback for when canonicalization failed.
This is a partial alternative to #139823.
Don't assemble non-env/bound candidates if projection is rigid
Putting this up for an initial review, it's still missing comments, clean-up, and possibly a tweak to deal with ambiguities in the `BestObligation` folder.
This PR fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/173. Specifically, we're creating an unnecessary query cycle in normalization by assembling an *impl candidate* even if we know later on during `merge_candidates` that we'll be filtering out that impl candidate.
This PR adjusts the `merge_candidates` to assemble *only* env/bound candidates if we have `TraitGoalProvenVia::ParamEnv | TraitGoalProvenVia::AliasBound`.
I'll leave some thoughts/comments in the code.
r? lcnr
Rewrite on_unimplemented format string parser.
This PR rewrites the format string parser for `rustc_on_unimplemented` and `diagnostic::on_unimplemented`. I plan on moving this code (and more) into the new attribute parsing system soon and wanted to PR it separately.
This PR introduces some minor differences though:
- `rustc_on_unimplemented` on trait *implementations* is no longer checked/used - this is actually never used (outside of some tests) so I plan on removing it in the future.
- for `rustc_on_unimplemented`, it introduces the `{This}` argument in favor of `{ThisTraitname}` (to be removed later). It'll be easier to parse.
- for `rustc_on_unimplemented`, `Self` can now consistently be used as a filter, rather than just `_Self`. It used to not match correctly on for example `Self = "[{integer}]"`
- Some error messages now have better spans.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130627
Make rustdoc JSON Span column 1-based, just like line numbers
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139906.
This PR does two things:
1. It makes column 1-indexed as well, just like lines.
2. It updates documentation about them to mention that they are 1-indexed.
I think it's better for coherency to have them both 1-indexed instead of the weird mix we used to have. Docs for `line` and `col` fields can be found [here](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_span/struct.Loc.html#structfield.line).
And finally: it adds a regression test to ensure they are indeed 1-indexed.
r? `@aDotInTheVoid`
- `tests/ui/augmented-assignment-feature-gate-cross.rs`:
- This was *originally* to feature-gate overloaded OpAssign
cross-crate, but now let's keep it as a smoke test.
- Renamed as `augmented-assignment-cross-crate.rs`.
- Relocated under `tests/ui/binop/`.
- `tests/ui/augmented-assignments.rs`:
- Documented test intent.
- Moved under `tests/ui/borrowck/`.
- `tests/ui/augmented-assignment-rpass.rs`:
- Renamed to drop the `-rpass` suffix, since this was leftover from
when `run-pass` test suite was a thing.
- Moved under `tests/ui/binop/`.
- Reworked the test as a *centralized* version of checking that certain
targets correctly require `-C target-cpu` being specified.
- Document test intention.
- Move `amdgpu-require-explicit-cpu.rs` under new dir
`tests/ui/target-cpu/`
- No other ui subdir really fits this "requires `-Ctarget-cpu`" check.
Implement `pin!()` using `super let`
Tracking issue for super let: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076
This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.
This means we can remove [the hack](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138717) we had to put in to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138596.
It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.
While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.
It'd help [the experiment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
The edition gate is a bit stricter than the drop behaviour,
which is fine. The cases we want to avoid are the opposite:
not gated but 2021 drop behaviour.
