rb_gc_force_recycle is now no-op, Ruby 3.1 support

[moste00]

Removed the body of rb_gc_force_recycle, a C API function that #2733 says that is deprecated and should be made a no-op. Full text search confirms it's not used anywhere.

[andrykonchin]

Linter fails with error:

Check the diff of this PR, and:
* if ABI has changed, then increment lib/cext/ABI_version.txt
* if ABI has not changed, then increment lib/cext/ABI_check.txt

Changing headers or compilation flags, as well as removing/adding a non-static function
(because e.g. mkmf have_func can depend on that) should all be considered ABI changes.

So one more change is required. Looks like ABI wasn't changed so could you please increment lib/cext/ABI_check.txt (it should probably be done in the same commit with changes in a header so satisfy the linter check)

[eregon]

Full text search

Do you mean GitHub search? I wouldn't trust that, rather git grep or so is reliable.

[eregon]

Upstream is https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/ruby_3_1/gc.c#L8675-L8679
Could you copy-paste that function declaration so we have exactly the same?

It's also deprecated here https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/ruby_3_1/include/ruby/internal/intern/gc.h#L213-L214
but we already have that:

truffleruby/lib/cext/include/ruby/internal/intern/gc.h

Line 213 in 82f5ec3

RBIMPL_ATTR_DEPRECATED(("this is now a no-op function"))

so that part is already done.

[moste00]

Do you mean GitHub search?

Oh I meant Intellij IDEA, I did "find in files" and it found nothing except the .h and .c where it's defined. I did git grep just now and it agrees.

Could you copy-paste that function declaration so we have exactly the same?

Hmmm, is there an automated check for that which we would like to pass ? It's the same exact function with a different formatting, I will do it anyway but I don't understand why we should string-match the exact file in CRuby :'D.

[moste00]

So one more change is required.

Done now.

[eregon]

Hmmm, is there an automated check for that which we would like to pass ? It's the same exact function with a different formatting, I will do it anyway but I don't understand why we should string-match the exact file in CRuby :'D.

Yeah we don't have to match exactly, e.g. we can respect the style of this file with 2-spaces indent and return type and { on the same line, etc. But it's good to look very close to the original so it's easy to compare with a glance.
Notably here we wouldn't want to keep the outdated comment.