CTFE: simplify ConstValue by not checking for alignment
I hope the test suite actually covers the problematic cases here?
r? @oli-obk
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61952
Move special treatment of `derive(Copy, PartialEq, Eq)` from expansion infrastructure to elsewhere
As described in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/62086#issuecomment-515195477.
Reminder:
- `derive(PartialEq, Eq)` makes the type it applied to a "structural match" type, so constants of this type can be used in patterns (and const generics in the future).
- `derive(Copy)` notifies other derives that the type it applied to implements `Copy`, so `derive(Clone)` can generate optimized code and other derives can generate code working with `packed` types and types with `rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range` attributes.
First, the special behavior is now enabled after properly resolving the derives, rather than after textually comparing them with `"Copy"`, `"PartialEq"` and `"Eq"` in `fn add_derived_markers`.
The markers are no longer kept as attributes in AST since derives cannot modify items and previously did it through hacks in the expansion infra.
Instead, the markers are now kept in a "global context" available from all the necessary places, namely - resolver.
For `derive(PartialEq, Eq)` the markers are created by the derive macros themselves and then consumed during HIR lowering to add the `#[structural_match]` attribute in HIR.
This is still a hack, but now it's a hack local to two specific macros rather than affecting the whole expansion infra.
Ideally we should find the way to put `#[structural_match]` on the impls rather than on the original item, and then consume it in `rustc_mir`, then no hacks in expansion and lowering will be required.
(I'll make an issue about this for someone else to solve, after this PR lands.)
The marker for `derive(Copy)` cannot be emitted by the `Copy` macro itself because we need to know it *before* the `Copy` macro is expanded for expanding other macros.
So we have to do it in resolve and block expansion of any derives in a `derive(...)` container until we know for sure whether this container has `Copy` in it or not.
Nasty stuff.
r? @eddyb or @matthewjasper
More Miri error tweaks
* Add `err_` version of the `_format!` macros
* Add `UbExperimental` variant so that Miri can mark some UB as experimental (e.g. Stacked Borrows)
r? @oli-obk
Rename `ItemKind::Ty` to `ItemKind::TyAlias`
The current name is not entirely clear without context and `TyAlias` is consistent with `ItemKind::TraitAlias`.
Use doc comments from 'pub use' statements
Split off from #62855
Currently, rustdoc ignores any doc comments found on 'pub use'
statements. As described in issue #58700, this makes it impossible to
properly document procedural macros. Any doc comments must be written on
the procedural macro definition, which must occur in a dedicated
proc-macro crate. This means that any doc comments or doc tests cannot
reference items defined in re-exporting crate, despite the fact that
such items may be required to use the procedural macro.
To solve this issue, this commit allows doc comments to be written on
'pub use' statements. For consistency, this applies to *all* 'pub use'
statements, not just those importing procedural macros.
When inlining documentation, documentation on 'pub use' statements will
be prepended to the documentation of the inlined item. For example,
the following items:
```rust
mod other_mod {
/// Doc comment from definition
pub struct MyStruct;
}
/// Doc comment from 'pub use'
///
pub use other_mod::MyStruct;
```
will caues the documentation for the re-export of 'MyStruct' to be
rendered as:
```
Doc comment from 'pub use'
Doc comment from definition
```
Note the empty line in the 'pub use' doc comments - because doc comments
are concatenated as-is, this ensure that the doc comments on the
definition start on a new line.
Fix rustc-guide toolstate tracking.
The rustc-guide is still not saving its toolstate. It needs to be done explicitly.
Note: There are some confusing bits here, like without `--no-fail-fast`, it saves the wrong value in `toolstates.json`. Also, "rustbook" is always added as "test-fail". Presumably [this code](63c1f17d95/src/bootstrap/tool.rs (L201-L205)) assumes everything fails until it passes tests, which is a bit confusing for things that don't run tests.
cc @mark-i-m
ci: move .azure-pipelines to src/ci/azure-pipelines
As discussed in the last infra meeting this PR moves the Azure Pipelines configuration to `src/ci/azure-pipelines`, to clean up the root directory.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #62954 (Fix typo in Delimited::open_tt)
- #63146 (Cleanup syntax::attr)
- #63218 (rustbuild: RISC-V is no longer an experimental LLVM target)
- #63227 (dead_code: Properly inspect fields in struct patterns with type relative paths)
- #63229 (A bit of Miri error cleanup)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
rustbuild: RISC-V is no longer an experimental LLVM target
This moves RISC-V from the experimental LLVM targets to the
regular LLVM targets. RISC-V was made non-experimental in
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL366399
I have also sorted the list of LLVM targets, and changed the code
around setting llvm_exp_targets (and its default) to match the code
setting llvm_targets (and its default), ensuring future changes to
the defaults, as LLVM targets become stable, affect as few places as
possible.
Given WebAssembly is in `LLVM_ALL_TARGETS` and is therefore built by default (and has been since October 2018), I'm not sure why rust still has it in `experimental-targets`. I'm happy to update this PR to move it into the main list of LLVM targets.
r? @alexcrichton
Miri: dispatch first on the type
Based on the fact that Miri now always has intptrcast available, we can change binops and casts to first check the type of the source operand and then decide based on that what to do, instead of considering the value (pointer vs bits) first.
Change opaque type syntax from `existential type` to type alias `impl Trait`
This implements a new feature gate `type_alias_impl_trait` (this is slightly different from the originally proposed feature name, but matches what has been used in discussion since), deprecating the old `existential_types` feature.
The syntax for opaque types has been changed. In addition, the "existential" terminology has been replaced with "opaque", as per previous discussion and the RFC.
This makes partial progress towards implementing https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63063.
r? @Centril
