Windows: Use FILE_ALLOCATION_INFO for truncation
We use `FILE_END_OF_FILE_INFO` here only because WINE does not support `FILE_ALLOCATION_INFO`. Instead of going with the one with broadest support, let's just use that as fallback only.
Correctly note item kind in `NonConstFunctionCall` error message
Don't just call everything a "`fn`". This is more consistent with the error message we give for conditionally-const items, which do note the item's def kind.
r? fmease, this is a prerequisite for making those `~const PartialEq` error messages better. Re-roll if you're busy or don't want to review this.
core: fix const ptr::swap_nonoverlapping when there are pointers at odd offsets
Ensure that the pointer gets swapped correctly even if it is not stored at an aligned offset. This rules out implementations that copy things in a `usize` loop -- so our implementation needs to be adjusted to avoid such a loop when running in const context.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133668
Fix safety docs for `dyn Any + Send {+ Sync}`
Fixes the `# Safety` docs for `dyn Any + Send`'s `downcast_{mut/ref}_unchecked` to show the direct instructions , where previously the would tell the user to find the docs on `dyn Any` themselves.
This also adds them for `downcast_{mut/ref}_unchecked` on `dyn Any + Send + Sync`
Begin to implement type system layer of unsafe binders
Mostly TODOs, but there's a lot of match arms that are basically just noops so I wanted to split these out before I put up the MIR lowering/projection part of this logic.
r? oli-obk
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130516
Always run `tail_expr_drop_order` lint in promoted MIR query
Rather than running the lint at the beginning of `mir_drops_elaborated_and_const_checked`, run it at the end of `mir_promoted`. This should ensure that the lint gets picked up when running `cargo fix`, which runs with `--emit metadata` and therefore doesn't actually query `mir_drops_elaborated_and_const_checked`.
We could probably push this down into `mir_built` too? but I don't really see a good reason to do so.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132861#issuecomment-2539960199
cc `@ehuss`
Generate shell completions for x as well
It would be nice to be have shell completions for both `./x` and `x` (installed with `cargo install --path src/tools/x`) instead of just `x.py`. This pr generates the corresponding completions for each shell in a similar way to `x.py` but under `x.<shell>` instead.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #134363 (Use `#[derive(Default)]` instead of manual `impl` when possible)
- #134517 (Add tests for coverage attribute on trait functions)
- #134528 (opt-dist: propagate channel info to bootstrap)
- #134669 (Document the `--dev` flag for `src/ci/docker/run.sh`)
- #134680 (Clean up a few rmake tests )
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Clean up a few rmake tests
Now I'm aware it's a bit late to start participating in the Advent of Tests, but here are a few cleanups in the rmake tests to put under the 🎄 anyways. A handful of unused imports, some warnings, and a couple typos.
r? `@jieyouxu` 🎅
Document the `--dev` flag for `src/ci/docker/run.sh`
This flag is very helpful for debugging CI issues locally, but it's not documented anywhere and I wasn't aware of it until `@jieyouxu` pointed it out. Add a note to the CI Docker readme to make this more discoverable
opt-dist: propagate channel info to bootstrap
Fixes#133503.
Previously, `tests/ui/bootstrap/rustc_bootstap.rs` [sic] failed during [beta bump](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133447#issuecomment-2501298794) in opt-dist tests. This is because:
- `opt-dist` tried to run `./x test` against beta-channel dist `rustc` through `bootstrap`.
- The dist build produced during the beta bump produces a `rustc` which correctly thinks that it is a beta compiler based on `src/ci/channel` info.
- `opt-dist` tries to run `./x test` on the beta `rustc` from the dist build, but without specifying channel through a synthetic `config.toml`, so `bootstrap` tells `compiletest` that we're on the `nightly` channel (by default).
- Now there's a channel mismatch: `compiletest` believes the `rustc` under test is a *nightly* rustc, but the `rustc` under test actually considers itself a *beta* rustc. This means that `//@ only-nightly` will be satisfied yet the test will fail as the *beta* rustc is not a *nightly* rustc.
This PR:
- Fixes the test failure during beta bump (i.e. #133503) by having `opt-dist` faithfully report the channel of the dist `rustc` being tested (i.e. "beta" in a beta bump PR). This will properly make the test be ignored during beta bump as the `rustc` under test is not a *nightly* rustc.
- Fixes the test name `rustc_bootstap.rs` -> `rustc_bootstrap.rs`. No more stapping.
- Slightly adjusts the doc comment in the test to make it more clear.
I ran a try-job against the beta branch (explicitly running the opt-dist tests by modifying the job definition) with these changes in #134131, and it appears that the try-job was [successful](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134131#issuecomment-2555492215). The two commits in this PR are cherry-picked from #134131, with the test commit slightly modified (to also adjust the test comments).
r? `@Kobzol` (or compiler or bootstrap or infra I guess?)
Use `#[derive(Default)]` instead of manual `impl` when possible
While working on #134175 I noticed a few manual `Default` `impl`s that could be `derive`d instead. These likely predate the existence of the `#[default]` attribute for `enum`s.
Revert stabilization of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute
Due to a process mixup, the PR to stabilize the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute (#130766) was merged while there are still outstanding concerns. The default action in that situation is to revert, and the feature is not sufficiently urgent or uncontroversial to justify special treatment, so this PR reverts that stabilization.
---
- A key point that came up in offline discussions is that unlike most user-facing features, this one never had a proper RFC, so parts of the normal stabilization process that implicitly rely on an RFC break down in this case.
- As the implementor and de-facto owner of the feature in its current form, I would like to think that I made good choices in designing and implementing it, but I don't feel comfortable proceeding to stabilization without further scrutiny.
- There hasn't been a clear opportunity for T-compiler to weigh in or express concerns prior to stabilization.
- The stabilization PR cites a T-lang FCP that occurred in the tracking issue, but due to the messy design and implementation history (and lack of a clear RFC), it's unclear what that FCP approval actually represents in this case.
- At the very least, we should not proceed without a clear statement from T-lang or the relevant members about the team's stance on this feature, especially in light of the other concerns listed here.
- The existing user-facing documentation doesn't clearly reflect which parts of the feature are stable commitments, and which parts are subject to change. And there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus anywhere about where that line is actually drawn, or whether the chosen boundary is acceptable to the relevant teams and individuals.
- For example, the [stabilization report comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84605#issuecomment-2166514660) mentions that some aspects are subject to change, but that text isn't consistent with my earlier comments, and there doesn't appear to have been any explicit discussion or approval process.
- [The current reference text](4dfaa4f/src/attributes/coverage-instrumentation.md) doesn't mention this distinction at all, and instead simply describes the current implementation behaviour.
- When the implementation was changed to its current form, the associated user-facing error messages were not updated, so they still refer to the attribute only being allowed on functions and closures.
- On its own, this might have been reasonable to fix-forward in the absence of other concerns, but the fact that it never came up earlier highlights the breakdown in process that has occurred here.
---
Apologies to everyone who was excited for this stabilization to land, but unfortunately it simply isn't ready yet.
Make sure we don't lose default struct value when formatting struct
The reason why https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/6424 broke when https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129514 landed is because the parser now *successfully* parses default struct values. That means that where we used to fail in `rewrite_macro_inner`:
e108481f74/src/tools/rustfmt/src/macros.rs (L263-L267)
... we now succeed, and we now proceed to format the inner struct as a macro arg. Since formatting was never implemented for default struct values, this means that we’ll always rewrite the struct to exclude the default value.
This PR makes it so that we simply don’t rewrite struct fields if they have a default value.
r? `@ytmimi`
test-infra: improve compiletest and run-make-support symlink handling
I was trying to implement #134656 to port `tests/run-make/incr-add-rust-src-component.rs`, but found some blockers related to symlink handling, so in this PR I tried to resolve them by improving symlink handling in compiletest and run-make-support (particularly for native windows msvc environment).
Key changes:
- I needed to copy symlinks (duplicate a symlink pointing to the same file), so I pulled out the copy symlink logic and re-exposed it as `run_make_support::rfs::copy_symlink`. This helper correctly accounts for the Windows symlink-to-file vs symlink-to-dir distinction (hereafter "Windows symlinks") when copying symlinks.
- `recursive_remove`:
- I needed a way to remove symlinks themselves (no symlink traversal). `std::fs::remove_dir_all` handles them, but only if the root path is a directory. So I wrapped `std::fs::remove_dir_all` to also handle when the root path is a non-directory entity (e.g. file or symlink). Again, this properly accounts for Windows symlinks.
- I wanted to use this for both compiletest and run-make-support, so I put the implementation and accompanying tests in `build_helper`.
- In this sense, it's a reland of #129302 with proper test coverage.
- It's a thin wrapper around `std::fs::remove_dir_all` (`remove_dir_all` correctly handles read-only entries on Windows). The helper has additional permission-setting logic for when the root path is a non-dir entry on Windows to handle read-only non-dir entry.
Fixes#126334.
Add `ignore-rustc-debug-assertions` to `tests/ui/associated-consts/issue-93775.rs`
Closes#132111. Closes#133432.
I think this test case is flaky because the recursive calls happen to hit the upper limit of the call stack.
IMO, this may not be an issue, as it's reasonable for overly complex code to require additional build configurations (such as increasing the call stack size).
After set `rust.debug-assertions` is true, the test case requires a larger call stack, so disable it on `rust.debug-assertions=true`.
r? jieyouxu
try-job: x86_64-msvc
try-job: i686-msvc
cleanup `TypeVerifier`
We should merge it with the `TypeChecker` as we no longer bail in cases where it encounters an error since #111863.
It's quite inconsistent whether a check lives in the verifier or the `TypeChecker`, so this feels like a quite impactful cleanup. I expect that for this we may want to change the `TypeChecker` to also be a MIR visitor 🤔 this is non-trivial so I didn't fully do it in this PR.
Best reviewed commit by commit.
r? `@compiler-errors` feel free to reassign however
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #130289 (docs: Permissions.readonly() also ignores root user special permissions)
- #134583 (docs: `transmute<&mut T, &mut MaybeUninit<T>>` is unsound when exposed to safe code)
- #134611 (Align `{i686,x86_64}-win7-windows-msvc` to their parent targets)
- #134629 (compiletest: Allow using a specific debugger when running debuginfo tests)
- #134642 (Implement `PointerLike` for `isize`, `NonNull`, `Cell`, `UnsafeCell`, and `SyncUnsafeCell`.)
- #134660 (Fix spacing of markdown code block fences in compiler rustdoc)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
