Since [1], `Cargo.lock` was split into `Cargo.lock` and
`library/Cargo.lock`. Update Triagebot to give the same warning for both.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128534
Add `Debug` impls to API types in `rustc_codegen_ssa`
Some types used in `rustc_codegen_ssa`'s interface traits are missing `Debug` impls. Though I did not smear `#[derive(Debug)]` all over the crate (some structs are quite large).
Don't re-elaborated already elaborated caller bounds in method probe
Caller bounds are already elaborated. Only elaborate object candidates' principals.
Also removes the only usage of `transitive_bounds`.
Enforce supertrait outlives obligations hold when confirming impl
**TL;DR:** We elaborate super-predicates and apply any outlives obligations when proving an impl holds to fix a mismatch between implied bounds.
Bugs in implied bounds (and implied well-formedness) occur whenever there is a mismatch between the assumptions that some code can assume to hold, and the obligations that a caller/user of that code must prove. If the former is stronger than the latter, then unsoundness occurs.
Take a look at the example unsoundness:
```rust
use std::fmt::Display;
trait Static: 'static {}
impl<T> Static for &'static T {}
fn foo<S: Display>(x: S) -> Box<dyn Display>
where
&'static S: Static,
{
Box::new(x)
}
fn main() {
let s = foo(&String::from("blah blah blah"));
println!("{}", s);
}
```
This specific example occurs because we elaborate obligations in `fn foo`:
* `&'static S: Static`
* `&'static S: 'static` <- super predicate
* `S: 'static` <- elaborating outlives bounds
However, when calling `foo`, we only need to prove the direct set of where clauses. So at the call site for some substitution `S = &'not_static str`, that means only proving `&'static &'not_static str: Static`. To prove this, we apply the impl, which itself holds trivially since it has no where clauses.
This is the mismatch -- `foo` is allowed to assume that `S: 'static` via elaborating supertraits, but callers of `foo` never need to prove that `S: 'static`.
There are several approaches to fixing this, all of which have problems due to current limitations in our type system:
1. proving the elaborated set of predicates always - This leads to issues since we don't have coinductive trait semantics, so we easily hit new cycles.
* This would fix our issue, since callers of `foo` would have to both prove `&'static &'not_static str: Static` and its elaborated bounds, which would surface the problematic `'not_static: 'static` outlives obligation.
* However, proving supertraits when proving impls leads to inductive cycles which can't be fixed until we get coinductive trait semantics.
2. Proving that an impl header is WF when applying that impl:
* This would fix our issue, since when we try to prove `&'static &'not_static str: Static`, we'd need to prove `WF(&'static &'not_static str)`, which would surface the problematic `'not_static: 'static` outlives obligation.
* However, this leads to issues since we don't have higher-ranked implied bounds. This breaks things when trying to apply impls to higher-ranked trait goals.
To get around these limitations, we apply a subset of (1.), which is to elaborate the supertrait obligations of the impl but filter only the (region/type) outlives out of that set, since those can never participate in an inductive cycle. This is likely not sufficient to fix a pathological example of this issue, but it does clearly fill in a major gap that we're currently overlooking.
This can also result in 'unintended' errors due to missing implied-bounds on binders. We did not encounter this in the crater run and don't expect people to rely on this code in practice:
```rust
trait Outlives<'b>: 'b {}
impl<'b, T> Outlives<'b> for &'b T {}
fn foo<'b>()
where
// This bound will break due to this PR as we end up proving
// `&'b &'!a (): 'b` without the implied `'!a: 'b`
// bound.
for<'a> &'b &'a (): Outlives<'b>,
{}
```
Fixes#98117
---
Crater: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124336#issuecomment-2209165320
Triaged: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124336#issuecomment-2236321325
All of the fallout is due to generic const exprs, and can be ignored.
Simplify lint deprecation
A couple of small changes:
* A few deprecations were changed to renames. They all had a message similar to "this lint has been replaced by ..." which is just describing a rename.
* The website and warning message are now the same. The website description was usually just a wordier version that contained no extra information. This can be worked around if needed, but I don't think that will happen.
* The legacy deprecations have been removed. rustc should handle this since it already suggests adding the `clippy::` for all lints (deprecated or not) when they're used without it. It wouldn't be a problem to add them back in.
* The website no longer has a "view source" link for deprecated lints since they're no longer read from the HIR tree. I could store the line number, but the link seems totally useless for these lints.
This came up as part of separating the internal lints into their own crate. Both the metadata collector and the lint registration code needs access to the deprecated and renamed lists. This form lets all the deprecations be a separate crate.
r? `@flip1995`
changelog: none
Check exit status of subcommands spawned by rustc_tools_util
The git commands `git rev-parse --short HEAD` and `git log -1 --date=short --pretty=format:%cd` that clippy runs from its build script might fail with **"fatal: not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git"** if clippy is being built from a source tarball rather than a git repository. That message is written by git to stderr, and nothing is written to stdout.
For `clippy-driver --version` this PR wouldn't make a difference because it treats empty stdout and failed spawns (`git` is not installed) identically:
7ac242c3d0/rustc_tools_util/src/lib.rs (L35-L42)
But other users of `rustc_tools_util` should be able to expect that the distinction between Some and None is meaningful. They shouldn't need extra code to handle None vs Some-and-empty vs Some-and-nonempty.
---
changelog: none
Migrate `reproducible-build-2` and `stable-symbol-names` `run-make` tests to rmake
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
Needs try-jobs.
try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: armhf-gnu
try-job: test-various
try-job: aarch64-apple
try-job: i686-msvc
try-job: x86_64-mingw
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #128026 (std:🧵 available_parallelism implementation for vxWorks proposal.)
- #128471 (rustdoc: Fix handling of `Self` type in search index and refactor its representation)
- #128607 (Use `object` in `run-make/symbols-visibility`)
- #128609 (Remove unnecessary constants from flt2dec dragon)
- #128611 (run-make: Remove cygpath)
- #128619 (Correct the const stabilization of `<[T]>::last_chunk`)
- #128630 (docs(resolve): more explain about `target`)
- #128660 (tests: more crashes)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
