Rollup of 7 pull requests #129261
Merged
Rollup of 7 pull requests #129261
Conversation
This file contains 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
For following:
```rust
struct A;
impl A {
fn test4(&self) {
let mut _file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
//~^ ERROR the `?` operator can only be used in a method
}
```
Suggest:
```rust
impl A {
fn test4(&self) -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
let mut _file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
//~^ ERROR the `?` operator can only be used in a method
Ok(())
}
}
```
For rust-lang#125997
After deduplication the block conceptually belongs to multiple locations in the source. Although these blocks are unreachable, in rust-lang#123341 we did come across a real side effect, an unreachable block that survives into the compiled code can cause a debugger to set a breakpoint on the wrong instruction. Erasing the source information ensures that a debugger will never be misled into thinking that the unreachable block is worth setting a breakpoint on, especially after rust-lang#128627. Technically we don't need to erase the source information if all the deduplicated blocks have identical source information, but tracking that seems like more effort than it's worth.
The documentation incorrectly stated that std::env::var could return an error for variable names containing '=' or the NUL byte. Copy the correct documentation from var_os. var_os was fixed in Commit 8a7a665, Pull Request rust-lang#109894, which closed Issue rust-lang#109893. This documentation was incorrectly added in commit f2c0f29, which replaced a panic in var_os by returning None, but documented the change as "May error if ...". Reference the specific error values and link to them.
The current cross-compilation toolchain for the LoongArch64 target consists of GCC 13.2.0, Binutils 2.40, and Glibc 2.36. However, Binutils 2.40 has known issues that in broken binaries without any error reports: - rust-lang#121289 - cross-rs/cross#1538 This patch upgrades the cross-compilation toolchain for the LoongArch64 target to resolve these issues. - GCC: 13.2.0 -> 14.2.0 - Binutils: 2.40 -> 2.42 The new binaries remain compatible with the existing GCC 13.2.0/Glibc 2.36 distribution, and no issues have been identified.
Fixes rust-lang#126831. Without this patch, type normalization is not always idempotent, which leads to all sorts of bugs in places that assume that normalizing a normalized type does nothing.
Stabilize `raw_ref_op` (RFC 2582) This stabilizes the syntax `&raw const $expr` and `&raw mut $expr`. It has existed unstably for ~4 years now, and has been exposed on stable via the `addr_of` and `addr_of_mut` macros since Rust 1.51 (released more than 3 years ago). I think it has become clear that these operations are here to stay. So it is about time we give them proper primitive syntax. This has two advantages over the macro: - Being macros, `addr_of`/`addr_of_mut` could in theory do arbitrary magic with the expression on which they work. The only "magic" they actually do is using the argument as a place expression rather than as a value expression. Place expressions are already a subtle topic and poorly understood by many programmers; having this hidden behind a macro using unstable language features makes this even worse. Conversely, people do have an idea of what happens below `&`/`&mut`, so we can make the subtle topic a lot more approachable by connecting to existing intuition. - The name `addr_of` is quite unfortunate from today's perspective, given that we have accepted provenance as a reality, which means that a pointer is *not* just an address. Strict provenance has a method, `addr`, which extracts the address of a pointer; using the term `addr` in two different ways is quite unfortunate. That's why this PR soft-deprecates `addr_of` -- we will wait a long time before actually showing any warning here, but we should start telling people that the "addr" part of this name is somewhat misleading, and `&raw` avoids that potential confusion. In summary, this syntax improves developers' ability to conceptualize the operational semantics of Rust, while making a fundamental operation frequently used in unsafe code feel properly built in. Possible questions to consider, based on the RFC and [this](rust-lang#64490 (comment)) great summary by `@CAD97:` - Some questions are entirely about the semantics. The semantics are the same as with the macros so I don't think this should have any impact on this syntax PR. Still, for completeness' sake: - Should `&raw const *mut_ref` give a read-only pointer? - Tracked at: rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines#257 - I think ideally the answer is "no". Stacked Borrows says that pointer is read-only, but Tree Borrows says it is mutable. - What exactly does `&raw const (*ptr).field` require? Answered in [the reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html): the arithmetic to compute the field offset follows the rules of `ptr::offset`, making it UB if it goes out-of-bounds. Making this a safe operation (using `wrapping_offset` rules) is considered too much of a loss for alias analysis. - Choose a different syntax? I don't want to re-litigate the RFC. The only credible alternative that has been proposed is `&raw $place` instead of `&raw const $place`, which (IIUC) could be achieved by making `raw` a contextual keyword in a new edition. The type is named `*const T`, so the explicit `const` is consistent in that regard. `&raw expr` lacks the explicit indication of immutability. However, `&raw const expr` is quite a but longer than `addr_of!(expr)`. - Shouldn't we have a completely new, better raw pointer type instead? Yes we all want to see that happen -- but I don't think we should block stabilization on that, given that such a nicer type is not on the horizon currently and given the issues with `addr_of!` mentioned above. (If we keep the `&raw $place` syntax free for this, we could use it in the future for that new type.) - What about the lint the RFC talked about? It hasn't been implemented yet. Given that the problematic code is UB with or without this stabilization, I don't think the lack of the lint should block stabilization. - I created an issue to track adding it: rust-lang#127724 - Other points from the "future possibilites of the RFC - "Syntactic sugar" extension: this has not been implemented. I'd argue this is too confusing, we should stick to what the RFC suggested and if we want to do anything about such expressions, add the lint. - Encouraging / requiring `&raw` in situations where references are often/definitely incorrect: this has been / is being implemented. On packed fields this already is a hard error, and for `static mut` a lint suggesting raw pointers is being rolled out. - Lowering of casts: this has been implemented. (It's also an invisible implementation detail.) - `offsetof` woes: we now have native `offset_of` so this is not relevant any more. To be done before landing: - [x] Suppress `unused_parens` lint around `&raw {const|mut}` expressions - See bottom of rust-lang#127679 (comment) for rationale - Implementation: rust-lang#128782 - [ ] Update the Reference. - rust-lang/reference#1567 Fixes rust-lang#64490 cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/opsem` try-job: x86_64-msvc try-job: test-various try-job: dist-various-1 try-job: armhf-gnu try-job: aarch64-apple
Suggest adding Result return type for associated method in E0277. Recommit rust-lang#126515 because I messed up during rebase, Suggest adding Result return type for associated method in E0277. For following: ```rust struct A; impl A { fn test4(&self) { let mut _file = File::create("foo.txt")?; //~^ ERROR the `?` operator can only be used in a method } ``` Suggest: ```rust impl A { fn test4(&self) -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> { let mut _file = File::create("foo.txt")?; //~^ ERROR the `?` operator can only be used in a method Ok(()) } } ``` For rust-lang#125997 r? `@cjgillot`
…, r=nnethercote When deduplicating unreachable blocks, erase the source information. After deduplication the block conceptually belongs to multiple locations in the source. Although these blocks are unreachable, in rust-lang#123341 we did come across a real side effect, an unreachable block that survives into the compiled code can cause a debugger to set a breakpoint on the wrong instruction. Erasing the source information ensures that a debugger will never be misled into thinking that the unreachable block is worth setting a breakpoint on, especially after rust-lang#128627. Technically we don't need to erase the source information if all the deduplicated blocks have identical source information, but tracking that seems like more effort than it's worth. I'll let njn redirect this one too. r? `@nnethercote`
…rkingjubilee doc: std::env::var: Returns None for names with '=' or NUL byte The documentation incorrectly stated that std::env::var could return an error for variable names containing '=' or the NUL byte. Copy the correct documentation from var_os. var_os was fixed in Commit 8a7a665, Pull Request rust-lang#109894, which closed Issue rust-lang#109893. This documentation was incorrectly added in commit f2c0f29, which replaced a panic in var_os by returning None, but documented the change as "May error if ...". Reference the specific error values and link to them.
…4, r=Mark-Simulacrum Update `crosstool-ng` for loongarch64 The current cross-compilation toolchain for the LoongArch64 target consists of GCC 13.2.0, Binutils 2.40, and Glibc 2.36. However, Binutils 2.40 has known issues that in broken binaries without any error reports: - rust-lang#121289 - cross-rs/cross#1538 This patch upgrades the cross-compilation toolchain for the LoongArch64 target to resolve these issues. - GCC: 13.2.0 -> 14.2.0 - Binutils: 2.40 -> 2.42 The new binaries remain compatible with the existing GCC 13.2.0/Glibc 2.36 distribution, and no issues have been identified. try-job: dist-loongarch64-linux
…acrum Include a copy of `compiler-rt` source in the `download-ci-llvm` tarball This will make it possible to experiment with allowing `download-ci-llvm` builds to build `library/profiler_builtins`, without needing to check out the `src/llvm-project` submodule. By itself, this PR just adds the files to the tarball, but doesn't actually do anything with them. The idea is that once this is merged, it will then be much easier to proceed with work on the necessary bootstrap changes (using the real downloaded tarball), without having to rig up weird hacks to simulate downloading a modified tarball. --- Adding these files to the compressed tarballs appears to increase its size by a negligible amount (<1 MB out of 400/800+ MB). The uncompressed size is about 14 MB (out of 2+ GB for the whole tarball). (The excluded test files would have been another 35 MB.)
Fix order of normalization and recursion in const folding. Fixes rust-lang#126831. Without this patch, type normalization is not always idempotent, which leads to all sorts of bugs in places that assume that normalizing a normalized type does nothing. Tracking issue: rust-lang#95174 r? BoxyUwU
rustbot
added
A-testsuite
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=7 |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
The loongarch jobs have been running for a long time, but it seems this is to be expected based on the try job at #129048. Hopefully just caching. |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:
previous master: 804be74e3c In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: |
This was referenced Aug 19, 2024
Merged
|
Finished benchmarking commit (e3f909b): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)Results (secondary 3.3%)This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesResults (primary 0.6%)This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Binary sizeResults (primary 0.0%)This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Bootstrap: 751.973s -> 750.46s (-0.20%) |
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.
Successful merges:
raw_ref_op(RFC 2582) #127679 (Stabilizeraw_ref_op(RFC 2582))crosstool-ngfor loongarch64 #129048 (Updatecrosstool-ngfor loongarch64)compiler-rtsource in thedownload-ci-llvmtarball #129116 (Include a copy ofcompiler-rtsource in thedownload-ci-llvmtarball)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup