Rustc pull update #2351
Merged
Rustc pull update #2351
+1
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Weekly `cargo update`
Automation to keep dependencies in `Cargo.lock` current.
The following is the output from `cargo update`:
```txt
compiler & tools dependencies:
Locking 11 packages to latest compatible versions
Updating bstr v1.11.3 -> v1.12.0
Updating clap v4.5.35 -> v4.5.36
Updating clap_builder v4.5.35 -> v4.5.36
Updating crossbeam-channel v0.5.14 -> v0.5.15
Updating jiff v0.2.5 -> v0.2.6
Updating jiff-static v0.2.5 -> v0.2.6
Updating jsonpath-rust v1.0.0 -> v1.0.1
Updating linux-raw-sys v0.9.3 -> v0.9.4
Updating miniz_oxide v0.8.7 -> v0.8.8
Updating self_cell v1.1.0 -> v1.2.0
Updating winnow v0.7.4 -> v0.7.6
note: pass `--verbose` to see 38 unchanged dependencies behind latest
library dependencies:
Locking 1 package to latest compatible version
Updating miniz_oxide v0.8.7 -> v0.8.8
note: pass `--verbose` to see 4 unchanged dependencies behind latest
rustbook dependencies:
Locking 9 packages to latest compatible versions
Updating bstr v1.11.3 -> v1.12.0
Updating cc v1.2.18 -> v1.2.19
Updating clap v4.5.35 -> v4.5.36
Updating clap_builder v4.5.35 -> v4.5.36
Updating jiff v0.2.5 -> v0.2.6
Updating jiff-static v0.2.5 -> v0.2.6
Updating linux-raw-sys v0.9.3 -> v0.9.4
Updating miniz_oxide v0.8.7 -> v0.8.8
Updating winnow v0.7.4 -> v0.7.6
```
…oss35,Amanieu,traviscross Stabilize `naked_functions` tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#90957 request for stabilization on tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#90957 (comment) reference PR: rust-lang/reference#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: rust-lang/reference#1689 (Previous PR: rust-lang/reference#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](rust-lang/rust#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](rust-lang/rfcs#1201), filed on 2015-07-10 and accepted on 2016-03-21. Support for this feature was added in [#32410](rust-lang/rust#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](rust-lang/rfcs#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](rust-lang/rust#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 rust-lang/rust#138568. relevant PRs for these recent changes - rust-lang/rust#127853 - rust-lang/rust#128651 - rust-lang/rust#128004 - rust-lang/rust#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
Hermit: Unify `std::env::args` with Unix The only differences between these implementations of `std::env::args` are that Unix uses relaxed ordering, but Hermit uses acquire/release, and Unix truncates `argv` at the first null pointer, but Hermit doesn't. Since Hermit aims for Unix compatibility, unify it with Unix. The atomic orderings were established in rust-lang/rust#74006 (cc `@euclio)` for Unix and rust-lang/rust#100579 (cc `@joboet)` for Hermit and, before those, they used mutexes and non-atomic statics. I think the difference in orderings is simply from them being changed at different times. The commented explanation for using acquire/release for Hermit is “to broadcast writes by the OS”. I'm not experienced enough with atomics to accurately judge, but I think acquire/release is stronger than needed. Either way, they should match. Truncating at the first null pointer seems desirable, though I don't know whether it is necessary in practice on Hermit. cc `@mkroening` `@stlankes` for Hermit
Clarify why SGX code specifies linkage/symbol names for certain statics Specifying linkage/symbol name is solely to ensure a single instance between the `std` crate and its unit tests. Also update the symbol names as items have moved around a bit. The actual name isn't that important, it just needs to be unique. But for debugging it can be useful for it to point to the right place.
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.
remove a couple clones
Fix error when an intra doc link is trying to resolve an empty associated item Fixes rust-lang/rust#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```
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```
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 rust-lang/rust#132748 (comment): ``` 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``
rustc-dev-guide subtree update r? ``@ghost``
cleanup redundant pattern instances Just two small code cleanups.
{B,C}Str: minor cleanup
(hopefully) uncontroversial bits extracted from #139994.
Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #134213 (Stabilize `naked_functions`)
- #139711 (Hermit: Unify `std::env::args` with Unix)
- #139795 (Clarify why SGX code specifies linkage/symbol names for certain statics)
- #140036 (Advent of `tests/ui` (misc cleanups and improvements) [4/N])
- #140047 (remove a couple clones)
- #140052 (Fix error when an intra doc link is trying to resolve an empty associated item)
- #140074 (rustdoc-json: Improve test for auto-trait impls)
- #140076 (jsondocck: Require command is at start of line)
- #140107 (rustc-dev-guide subtree update)
- #140111 (cleanup redundant pattern instances)
- #140118 ({B,C}Str: minor cleanup)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
…henkov
Remove `token::{Open,Close}Delim`
By replacing them with `{Open,Close}{Param,Brace,Bracket,Invisible}`.
PR #137902 made `ast::TokenKind` more like `lexer::TokenKind` by
replacing the compound `BinOp{,Eq}(BinOpToken)` variants with fieldless
variants `Plus`, `Minus`, `Star`, etc. This commit does a similar thing
with delimiters. It also makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`parser::TokenType`.
This requires a few new methods:
- `TokenKind::is_{,open_,close_}delim()` replace various kinds of
pattern matches.
- `Delimiter::as_{open,close}_token_kind` are used to convert
`Delimiter` values to `TokenKind`.
Despite these additions, it's a net reduction in lines of code. This is
because e.g. `token::OpenParen` is so much shorter than
`token::OpenDelim(Delimiter::Parenthesis)` that many multi-line forms
reduce to single line forms. And many places where the number of lines
doesn't change are still easier to read, just because the names are
shorter, e.g.:
```
- } else if self.token != token::CloseDelim(Delimiter::Brace) {
+ } else if self.token != token::CloseBrace {
```
r? `@petrochenkov`
Stabilize let chains in the 2024 edition # Stabilization report This proposes the stabilization of `let_chains` ([tracking issue], [RFC 2497]) in the [2024 edition] of Rust. [tracking issue]: rust-lang/rust#53667 [RFC 2497]: rust-lang/rfcs#2497 [2024 edition]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/edition-guide/rust-2024/index.html ## What is being stabilized The ability to `&&`-chain `let` statements inside `if` and `while` is being stabilized, allowing intermixture with boolean expressions. The patterns inside the `let` sub-expressions can be irrefutable or refutable. ```Rust struct FnCall<'a> { fn_name: &'a str, args: Vec<i32>, } fn is_legal_ident(s: &str) -> bool { s.chars() .all(|c| ('a'..='z').contains(&c) || ('A'..='Z').contains(&c)) } impl<'a> FnCall<'a> { fn parse(s: &'a str) -> Option<Self> { if let Some((fn_name, after_name)) = s.split_once("(") && !fn_name.is_empty() && is_legal_ident(fn_name) && let Some((args_str, "")) = after_name.rsplit_once(")") { let args = args_str .split(',') .map(|arg| arg.parse()) .collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>>(); args.ok().map(|args| FnCall { fn_name, args }) } else { None } } fn exec(&self) -> Option<i32> { let iter = self.args.iter().copied(); match self.fn_name { "sum" => Some(iter.sum()), "max" => iter.max(), "min" => iter.min(), _ => None, } } } fn main() { println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("sum(1,2,3)").unwrap().exec()); println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("max(4,5)").unwrap().exec()); } ``` The feature will only be stabilized for the 2024 edition and future editions. Users of past editions will get an error with a hint to update the edition. closes #53667 ## Why 2024 edition? Rust generally tries to ship new features to all editions. So even the oldest editions receive the newest features. However, sometimes a feature requires a breaking change so much that offering the feature without the breaking change makes no sense. This occurs rarely, but has happened in the 2018 edition already with `async` and `await` syntax. It required an edition boundary in order for `async`/`await` to become keywords, and the entire feature foots on those keywords. In the instance of let chains, the issue is the drop order of `if let` chains. If we want `if let` chains to be compatible with `if let`, drop order makes it hard for us to [generate correct MIR]. It would be strange to have different behaviour for `if let ... {}` and `if true && let ... {}`. So it's better to [stay consistent with `if let`]. In edition 2024, [drop order changes] have been introduced to make `if let` temporaries be lived more shortly. These changes also affected `if let` chains. These changes make sense even if you don't take the `if let` chains MIR generation problem into account. But if we want to use them as the solution to the MIR generation problem, we need to restrict let chains to edition 2024 and beyond: for let chains, it's not just a change towards more sensible behaviour, but one required for correct function. [generate correct MIR]: rust-lang/rust#104843 [stay consistent with `if let`]: rust-lang/rust#103293 (comment) [drop order changes]: rust-lang/rust#124085 ## Introduction considerations As edition 2024 is very new, this stabilization PR only makes it possible to use let chains on 2024 without that feature gate, it doesn't mark that feature gate as stable/removed. I would propose to continue offering the `let_chains` feature (behind a feature gate) for a limited time (maybe 3 months after stabilization?) on older editions to allow nightly users to adopt edition 2024 at their own pace. After that, the feature gate shall be marked as *stabilized*, not removed, and replaced by an error on editions 2021 and below. ## Implementation history * History from before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR] that was reverted. * rust-lang/rust#94927 * rust-lang/rust#94951 * rust-lang/rust#94974 * rust-lang/rust#95008 * rust-lang/rust#97295 * rust-lang/rust#98633 * rust-lang/rust#99731 * rust-lang/rust#102394 * rust-lang/rust#100526 * rust-lang/rust#100538 * rust-lang/rust#102998 * rust-lang/rust#103405 * rust-lang/rust#103293 * rust-lang/rust#107251 * rust-lang/rust#110568 * rust-lang/rust#115677 * rust-lang/rust#117743 * rust-lang/rust#117770 * rust-lang/rust#118191 * rust-lang/rust#119554 * rust-lang/rust#129394 * rust-lang/rust#132828 * rust-lang/reference#1179 * rust-lang/reference#1251 * rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 [original stabilization PR]: rust-lang/rust#94927 ## Adoption history ### In the compiler * History before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR]. * rust-lang/rust#115983 * rust-lang/rust#116549 * rust-lang/rust#116688 ### Outside of the compiler * rust-lang/rust-clippy#11750 * [rspack](https://github.com/web-infra-dev/rspack) * [risingwave](https://github.com/risingwavelabs/risingwave) * [dylint](https://github.com/trailofbits/dylint) * [convex-backend](https://github.com/get-convex/convex-backend) * [tikv](https://github.com/tikv/tikv) * [Daft](https://github.com/Eventual-Inc/Daft) * [greptimedb](https://github.com/GreptimeTeam/greptimedb) ## Tests <details> ### Intentional restrictions [`partially-macro-expanded.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/partially-macro-expanded.rs), [`macro-expanded.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/macro-expanded.rs): it is possible to use macros to expand to both the pattern and the expression inside a let chain, but not to the entire `let pat = expr` operand. [`parens.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/parens.rs): `if (let pat = expr)` is not allowed in chains [`ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs): `let...else` doesn't support chaining. ### Overlap with match guards [`move-guard-if-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/move-guard-if-let-chain.rs): test for the `use moved value` error working well in match guards. could maybe be extended with let chains that have more than one `let` [`shadowing.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/shadowing.rs): shadowing in if let guards works as expected [`ast-validate-guards.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-validate-guards.rs): let chains in match guards require the match guards feature gate ### Simple cases from the early days PR #88642 has added some tests with very simple usages of `let else`, mostly as regression tests to early bugs. [`then-else-blocks.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/then-else-blocks.rs) [`ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs) [`issue-90722.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-90722.rs) [`issue-92145.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-92145.rs) ### Drop order/MIR scoping tests [`issue-100276.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/issue-100276.rs): let expressions on RHS aren't terminating scopes [`drop_order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/drop_order.rs): exhaustive temporary drop order test for various Rust constructs, including let chains [`scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/scope.rs): match guard scoping test [`drop-scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/drop-scope.rs): another match guard scoping test, ensuring that temporaries in if-let guards live for the arm [`drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs): if let rescoping on edition 2024, including chains [`mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/mir/mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs): comprehensive drop order test for let chains, distinguishes editions 2021 and 2024. [`issue-99938.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-99938.rs), [`issue-99852.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/mir/issue-99852.rs) both bad MIR ICEs fixed by #102394 ### Linting [`irrefutable-lets.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/irrefutable-lets.rs): trailing and leading irrefutable let patterns get linted for, others don't. The lint is turned off for `else if`. [`issue-121070-let-range.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/lint/issue-121070-let-range.rs): regression test for false positive of the unused parens lint, precedence requires the `()`s here ### Parser: intentional restrictions [`disallowed-positions.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/2128d8df0e858edcbe6a0861bac948b88b7fabc3/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs): `let` in expression context is rejected everywhere except at the top level [`invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs): nested `let` is not allowed (let's are no legal expressions just because they are allowed in `if` and `while`). ### Parser: recovery [`issue-103381.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/issues/issue-103381.rs): Graceful recovery of incorrect chaining of `if` and `if let` [`semi-in-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/semi-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray `;`s in let chains give nice errors (`if_chain!` users might be accustomed to `;`s) [`deli-ident-issue-1.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/deli-ident-issue-1.rs), [`brace-in-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/brace-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray unclosed `{`s in let chains give nice errors and hints ### Misc [`conflicting_bindings.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/pattern/usefulness/conflicting_bindings.rs): the conflicting bindings check also works in let chains. Personally, I'd extend it to chains with multiple let's as well. [`let-chains-attr.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/expr/if/attrs/let-chains-attr.rs): attributes work on let chains ### Tangential tests with `#![feature(let_chains)]` [`if-let.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/coverage/branch/if-let.rs): MC/DC coverage tests for let chains [`logical_or_in_conditional.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/mir-opt/building/logical_or_in_conditional.rs): not really about let chains, more about dropping/scoping behaviour of `||` [`stringify.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs): exhaustive test of the `stringify` macro [`expanded-interpolation.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-interpolation.rs), [`expanded-exhaustive.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-exhaustive.rs): Exhaustive test of `-Zunpretty` [`diverges-not.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-0000-never_patterns/diverges-not.rs): Never type, mostly tangential to let chains </details> ## Possible future work * There is proposals to allow `if let Pat(bindings) = expr {}` to be written as `if expr is Pat(bindings) {}` ([RFC 3573]). `if let` chains are a natural extension of the already existing `if let` syntax, and I'd argue orthogonal towards `is` syntax. * rust-lang/lang-team#297 * One could have similar chaining inside `let ... else` statements. There is no proposed RFC for this however, nor is it implemented on nightly. * Match guards have the `if` keyword as well, but on stable Rust, they don't support `let`. The functionality is available via an unstable feature ([`if_let_guard` tracking issue]). Stabilization of let chains affects this feature in so far as match guards containing let chains now only need the `if_let_guard` feature gate be present instead of also the `let_chains` feature (NOTE: this PR doesn't implement this simplification, it's left for future work). [RFC 3573]: rust-lang/rfcs#3573 [`if_let_guard` tracking issue]: rust-lang/rust#51114 ## Open questions / blockers - [ ] bad recovery if you don't put a `let` (I don't think this is a blocker): [#117977](rust-lang/rust#117977) - [x] An instance where a temporary lives shorter than with nested ifs, breaking compilation: [#103476](rust-lang/rust#103476). Personally I don't think this is a blocker either, as it's an edge case. Edit: turns out to not reproduce in edition 2025 any more, due to let rescoping. regression test added in #133093 - [x] One should probably extend the tests for `move-guard-if-let-chain.rs` and `conflicting_bindings.rs` to have chains with multiple let's: done in 133093 - [x] Parsing rejection tests: addressed by rust-lang/rust#132828 - [x] [Style](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/346005-t-style/topic/let.20chains.20stabilization.20and.20formatting): rust-lang/rust#139456 - [x] rust-lang/rust#86730 explicitly mentions `let_else`. I think we can live with `let pat = expr` not evaluating as `expr` for macro_rules macros, especially given that `let pat = expr` is not a legal expression anywhere except inside `if` and `while`. - [x] Documentation in the reference: rust-lang/reference#1740 - [x] Add chapter to the Rust 2024 [edition guide]: rust-lang/edition-guide#337 - [x] Resolve open questions on desired drop order. [original reference PR]: rust-lang/reference#1179 [edition guide]: https://github.com/rust-lang/edition-guide
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
Refactor git change detection in bootstrap While working on rust-lang/rust#138395, I finally found the courage to delve into the insides of git path change detection in bootstrap, which is used (amongst other things) to detect if we should rebuilt od download `[llvm|rustc|gcc]`. I found it a bit hard to understand, and given that this code was historically quite fragile, I thought that it would be better to rebuild it from scratch. The previous approach had a bunch of limitations: - It separated the computation of "are there local changes?" and "what upstream SHA should we use?" even though these two things are intertwined. - It used hacks to work around what happens on CI. - It had special cases for CI scattered throughout the codebase, rather than centralized in one place. - It wasn't documented enough and didn't have tests for the git behavior. The current approach should hopefully resolve all of that. I implemented a single entrypoint called `check_path_modifications` (naming bikeshed pending, half of the time I spend on this PR was thinking about names, as it's quite tricky here..) that explicitly receives a mode of operation (in CI or outside CI), and accordingly figures out that upstream SHA that we should use for downloading artifacts and it also figures out if there are any local changes. Users of this function can then use this unified output to implement `download-ci-X` and other functionality. Notably, this change detection no longer uses `git merge-base`, which makes it easier to use and doesn't require setting up remotes. I also added a bunch of integration tests that literally spawn a git repository on disk and then check that the function can deal with various situations (PR CI, auto/try CI, local builds). After I built this inner layer, I used it for downloading GCC, LLVM and rustc. The latter two (and especially rustc) were using the `last_modified_commit` function before, but in all cases but one this function was actually only used to check if there are any local changes, which was IMO confusing. The LLVM handling would deserve a bit of refactoring, but that's a larger change that can be done as a follow-up. I hope that the implementation is now clear and easy to understand, so that in combination with the tests we can have more confidence that it does what we want. I tried to include a lot of documentation in the code, so I won't be repeating the actual implementation details here, if there are any questions, I'll add the answers to the documentation too :) The new approach explicitly supports three scenarios: - Running on PR CI, where we have one upstream bors parent commit and one PR merge commit made by GitHub. - Running on try/auto CI, where we have one upstream bors parent commit and one PR merge commit made by bors. - Running locally, where we assume that we have at least one upstream bors parent commit in our git history. I removed the handling of upstreams on CI, as I think that it shouldn't be needed and I considered it to be a hack. However, it's possible that there are other use-cases that I haven't considered, so I want to ask around if people have other situations than the three use-cases described above. If there are other such use-cases, I would like to include them in the new centralized implementation and add them to the git test suite, rather than going back to the old ways :) In particular, the code before relied on `git merge-base`, but I don't see why we can't just lookup the most recent bors commit and assume that is a merge commit that is also upstream? I might be running into Chesterton's Fence here :) CC `@pietroalbini` To make sure that this won't break downstream users of Rust's CI. Best reviewed commit by commit. Companion PRs: - For testing beta: rust-lang/rust#138597 r? `@onur-ozkan` Fixes: rust-lang/rust#101907 try-job: x86_64-gnu-aux try-job: aarch64-gnu try-job: dist-x86_64-apple
…-dead,traviscross make abi_unsupported_vector_types a hard error Fixes rust-lang/rust#116558 by completing the transition; see that issue for context. The lint was introduced with Rust 1.84 and this has been shown in cargo's future breakage reports since Rust 1.85, released 6 weeks ago, and so far we got 0 complaints by users. There's not even a backlink on the tracking issue. We did a [crater run](rust-lang/rust#127731 (comment)) when the lint was originally added and found no breakage. So I don't think we need another crater run now, but I can do one if the team prefers that. rust-lang/rust#131800 is done, so for most current targets (in particular, all tier 1 and tier 2 targets) we have the information to implement this check (modulo the targets where we don't properly support SIMD vectors yet, see the sub-issues of rust-lang/rust#116558). If a new target gets added in the future, it will default to reject all SIMD vector types until proper information is added, which is the default we want. This will need approval by for `@rust-lang/lang.` Cc `@workingjubilee` `@veluca93` try-job: test-various try-job: armhf-gnu try-job: dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Latest update from rustc.