Rollup of 11 pull requests #144952
Open
Rollup of 11 pull requests #144952
+508
−314
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
Co-authored-by: Tshepang Mbambo <[email protected]>
Currently the Args new function is scope constrained to pub(super) but this stops me from being able to construct Args structs in unit tests.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brouwer <[email protected]>
The current `rust-version = "1.63"` was inherited from rayon, but it doesn't make sense to limit this in the compiler workspace. Having any setting at all has effects on tools like `cargo info` that try to infer the MSRV when the workspace itself doesn't specify it. Since we are the compiler, our only MSRV is whatever bootstrapping requires.
…zelmann Port #[macro_export] to the new attribute parsing infrastructure Ports macro_export to the new attribute parsing infrastructure for rust-lang#131229 (comment) r? `````@oli-obk````` cc `````@JonathanBrouwer````` `````@jdonszelmann`````
…=lcnr Stabilize const TypeId::of fixes rust-lang#77125 # Stabilization report for `const_type_id` ## General design ### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized? N/A the constness was never RFCed ### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con. `const_type_id` was kept unstable because we are currently unable to stabilize the `PartialEq` impl for it (in const contexts), so we feared people would transmute the type id to an integer and compare that integer. ### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those? `TypeId::eq` is not const at this time, and will only become const once const traits are stable. ## Has a Call for Testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received? This feature has been unstable for a long time, and most people just worked around it on stable by storing a pointer to `TypeId::of` and calling that at "runtime" (usually LLVM devirtualized the function pointer and inlined the call so there was no real performance difference). A lot of people seem to be using the `const_type_id` feature gate (600 results for the feature gate on github: https://github.com/search?q=%22%23%21%5Bfeature%28const_type_id%29%5D%22&type=code) We have had very little feedback except desire for stabilization being expressed. ## Implementation quality Until these three PRs * rust-lang#142789 * rust-lang#143696 * rust-lang#143736 there was no difference between the const eval feature and the runtime feature except that we prevented you from using `TypeId::of` at compile-time. These three recent PRs have hardened the internals of `TypeId`: * it now contains an array of pointers instead of integers * these pointers at compile-time (and in miri) contain provenance that makes them unique and prevents inspection. Both miri and CTFE will in fact error if you mess with the bits or the provenance of the pointers in any way and then try to use the `TypeId` for an equality check. This also guards against creating values of type `TypeId` by any means other than `TypeId::of` ### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs) N/A see above ### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature Since we are not stabilizing any operations on `TypeId` except for creating `TypeId`s, the test coverage of the runtime implementation of `TypeId` covers all the interesting use cases not in the list below #### Hardening against transmutes * https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/ui/consts/const_transmute_type_id.rs * https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/ui/consts/const_transmute_type_id2.rs * https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/ui/consts/const_transmute_type_id3.rs * https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/ui/consts/const_transmute_type_id4.rs * https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/ui/consts/const_transmute_type_id5.rs #### TypeId::eq is still unstable * https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/tests/ui/consts/const_cmp_type_id.rs ### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking? rust-lang#129014 is still unresolved, but it affects more the runtime version of `TypeId` than the compile-time. ### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there? none ### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization * `````@eddyb````` * `````@RalfJung````` ### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done? N/A ## Type system and execution rules ### What compilation-time checks are done that are needed to prevent undefined behavior? Already covered above. Transmuting types with private fields to expose those fields has always been library UB, but for the specific case of `TypeId` CTFE and Miri will detect it if that is done in any way other than for reconstructing the exact same `TypeId` in another ___location. ### Does the feature's implementation need checks to prevent UB or is it sound by default and needs opt in in places to perform the dangerous/unsafe operations? If it is not sound by default, what is the rationale? N/A ### Can users use this feature to introduce undefined behavior, or use this feature to break the abstraction of Rust and expose the underlying assembly-level implementation? (Describe.) N/A ### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist) Nothing more than what needs to exist for `TypeId` already. ## Common interactions ### Does this feature introduce new expressions and can they produce temporaries? What are the lifetimes of those temporaries? N/A ### What other unstable features may be exposed by this feature? N/A
…oxyUwU Add documentation for unstable_feature_bound There is more detail and explanation in https://hackmd.io/``@tiif/Byd3mq7Ige`` Original PR that implemented this: rust-lang#140399 r? ``@BoxyUwU`` to nominate for types team discussion
…k-Simulacrum Stabilize `strict_overflow_ops` Closes rust-lang#118260
…er, r=WaffleLapkin Anonymize binders in tail call sig See the comment for explanation Fixes rust-lang#144826 r? WaffleLapkin
Change visibility of Args new function Currently the Args new function is constrained to pub(super) but this stops me from being able to construct Args structs in unit tests. This pull request is to change this to pub.
…lize, r=dtolnay Stabilize `unsigned_signed_diff` feature This closes [tracking issue](rust-lang#126041) and stabilises `checked_signed_diff` r? libs-api
…ifetimes, r=lcnr
Enforce tail call type is related to body return type in borrowck
Like all call terminators, tail call terminators instantiate the binder of the callee signature with region variables and equate the arg operand types with that signature's args to ensure that the call is valid.
However, unlike normal call terminators, we were forgetting to also relate the return type of the call terminator to anything. In the case of tail call terminators, the correct thing is to relate it to the return type of the caller function (or in other words, the return local `_0`).
This meant that if the caller's return type had some lifetime constraint, then that constraint wouldn't flow through the signature and affect the args.
This is what's happening in the example test I committed:
```rust
fn link(x: &str) -> &'static str {
become passthrough(x);
}
fn passthrough<T>(t: T) -> T { t }
fn main() {
let x = String::from("hello, world");
let s = link(&x);
drop(x);
println!("{s}");
}
```
Specifically, the type `x` is `'?0 str`, where `'?0` is some *universal* arg. The type of `passthrough` is `fn(&'?1 str) -> &'?1 str`. Equating the args sets `'?0 = '?1`. However, we need to also equate the return type `&'?1 str` to `&'static str` so that we eventually require that `'?0 = 'static`, which is a borrowck error!
-----
Look at the first commit for the functional change, and the second commit is just a refactor because we don't need to pass `Option<BasicBlock>` to `check_call_dest`, but just whether or not the terminator is expected to be diverging (i.e. if the return type is `!`).
Fixes rust-lang#144916
…iper Correct the use of `must_use` on btree::IterMut I'm working on stricter target checking for attributes and found this one
Drop `rust-version` from `rustc_thread_pool` The current `rust-version = "1.63"` was inherited from rayon, but it doesn't make sense to limit this in the compiler workspace. Having any setting at all has effects on tools like `cargo info` that try to infer the MSRV when the workspace itself doesn't specify it. Since we are the compiler, our only MSRV is whatever bootstrapping requires.
…eLapkin Autolabel PRs that change explicit tail call tests as `F-explicit_tail_calls` mrrrow~
rustbot
added
A-attributes
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 5, 2025
Rollup of 11 pull requests Successful merges: - #143857 (Port #[macro_export] to the new attribute parsing infrastructure) - #144133 (Stabilize const TypeId::of) - #144676 (Add documentation for unstable_feature_bound) - #144682 (Stabilize `strict_overflow_ops`) - #144835 (Anonymize binders in tail call sig) - #144836 (Change visibility of Args new function) - #144900 (Stabilize `unsigned_signed_diff` feature) - #144917 (Enforce tail call type is related to body return type in borrowck) - #144926 (Correct the use of `must_use` on btree::IterMut) - #144928 (Drop `rust-version` from `rustc_thread_pool`) - #144945 (Autolabel PRs that change explicit tail call tests as `F-explicit_tail_calls`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
@/bors treeclosed=1000 |
|
@bors retry r- |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
Looks like "retry r-" is understood as "r-" and got the PR kicked out of the queue. I'll just "retry" it (hope I'm not contradicting something you did on purpose). @bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
Retry didn't do anything apparently. Let's try r+ then. @bors r+ |
|
🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 1000. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened. |
|
@/bors treeclosed- |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 5, 2025
Rollup of 11 pull requests Successful merges: - #143857 (Port #[macro_export] to the new attribute parsing infrastructure) - #144133 (Stabilize const TypeId::of) - #144676 (Add documentation for unstable_feature_bound) - #144682 (Stabilize `strict_overflow_ops`) - #144835 (Anonymize binders in tail call sig) - #144836 (Change visibility of Args new function) - #144900 (Stabilize `unsigned_signed_diff` feature) - #144917 (Enforce tail call type is related to body return type in borrowck) - #144926 (Correct the use of `must_use` on btree::IterMut) - #144928 (Drop `rust-version` from `rustc_thread_pool`) - #144945 (Autolabel PRs that change explicit tail call tests as `F-explicit_tail_calls`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors try |
rust-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 5, 2025
Rollup of 11 pull requests try-job: test-various
|
@bors2 try jobs=test-various |
rust-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 5, 2025
Rollup of 11 pull requests try-job: test-various
|
@bors try cancel |
|
Try build cancelled. Cancelled workflows: |
|
Ah ah, that cancelled both |
rust-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 5, 2025
Rollup of 11 pull requests try-job: test-various
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:
strict_overflow_ops#144682 (Stabilizestrict_overflow_ops)unsigned_signed_difffeature #144900 (Stabilizeunsigned_signed_difffeature)must_useon btree::IterMut #144926 (Correct the use ofmust_useon btree::IterMut)rust-versionfromrustc_thread_pool#144928 (Droprust-versionfromrustc_thread_pool)F-explicit_tail_calls#144945 (Autolabel PRs that change explicit tail call tests asF-explicit_tail_calls)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
try-job: test-various
Create a similar rollup