Refactor the dependency structure from a nested unordered list to a single-level ordered list.
IMO, this is clearer, but happy to close this PR without merging, if the change is not desired.
Extend the alignment check to borrows
The current alignment check does not include checks for creating misaligned references from raw pointers, which is now added in this patch.
When inserting the check we need to be careful with references to field projections (e.g. `&(*ptr).a`), in which case the resulting reference must be aligned according to the field type and not the type of the pointer.
r? `@saethlin`
cc `@RalfJung,` after our discussion in #134424
Based on lessons learned from 2024. There's probably still more details
to say here since it was a ton of work. These are the major points that
I remember.
It was observed that some people were missing the `edition20xx` rustdoc
attribute. Although this probably won't solve that problem, I'd still
like to highlight it as something to be aware of.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #140056 (Fix a wrong error message in 2024 edition)
- #140220 (Fix detection of main function if there are expressions around it)
- #140249 (Remove `weak` alias terminology)
- #140316 (Introduce `BoxMarker` to improve pretty-printing correctness)
- #140347 (ci: clean more disk space in codebuild)
- #140349 (ci: use aws codebuild for the `dist-x86_64-linux` job)
- #140379 (rustc-dev-guide subtree update)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Remove `weak` alias terminology
I find the "weak" alias terminology to be quite confusing. It implies the existence of "strong" aliases (which do not exist) and I'm not really sure what about weak aliases is "weak". I much prefer "free alias" as the term. I think it's much more obvious what it means as "free function" is a well defined term that already exists in rust.
It's also a little confusing given "weak alias" is already a term in linker/codegen spaces which are part of the compiler too. Though I'm not particularly worried about that as it's usually very obvious if you're talking about the type system or not lol. I'm also currently trying to write documentation about aliases and it's somewhat awkward/confusing to be talking about *weak* aliases, when I'm not really sure what the basis for that as the term actually *is*.
I would also be happy to just find out there's a nice meaning behind calling them "weak" aliases :-)
r? `@oli-obk`
maybe we want a types MCP to decide on a specific naming here? or maybe we think its just too late to go back on this naming decision ^^'
Fix detection of main function if there are expressions around it
Fixes#140162.
Fixes#139651.
Once this is merged, we can backport and I'll send a follow-up to emit a warning in case a `main` function is about to be "wrapped" (and therefore not run).
r? `@fmease`
try-job: x86_64-mingw-1
Implement a lint for implicit autoref of raw pointer dereference - take 2
*[t-lang nomination comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123239#issuecomment-2727551097)*
This PR aims at implementing a lint for implicit autoref of raw pointer dereference, it is based on #103735 with suggestion and improvements from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103735#issuecomment-1370420305.
The goal is to catch cases like this, where the user probably doesn't realise it just created a reference.
```rust
pub struct Test {
data: [u8],
}
pub fn test_len(t: *const Test) -> usize {
unsafe { (*t).data.len() } // this calls <[T]>::len(&self)
}
```
Since #103735 already went 2 times through T-lang, where they T-lang ended-up asking for a more restricted version (which is what this PR does), I would prefer this PR to be reviewed first before re-nominating it for T-lang.
----
Compared to the PR it is as based on, this PR adds 3 restrictions on the outer most expression, which must either be:
1. A deref followed by any non-deref place projection (that intermediate deref will typically be auto-inserted)
2. A method call annotated with `#[rustc_no_implicit_refs]`.
3. A deref followed by a `addr_of!` or `addr_of_mut!`. See bottom of post for details.
There are several points that are not 100% clear to me when implementing the modifications:
- ~~"4. Any number of automatically inserted deref/derefmut calls." I as never able to trigger this. Am I missing something?~~ Fixed
- Are "index" and "field" enough?
----
cc `@JakobDegen` `@WaffleLapkin`
r? `@RalfJung`
try-job: dist-various-1
try-job: dist-various-2
Correctly display stdout and stderr in case a doctest is failing
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140289.
Since the doctest is actually running itself, we need to handle the output directly inside it.
cc `@fmease`
r? `@notriddle`
check types of const param defaults
fixes#139643 by checking that the type of a const parameter default matches the type of the parameter as long as both types are fully concrete
r? `@BoxyUwU`
[compiletest] Parallelize test discovery
Certain filesystems are slow to service individual read requests, but can service many in parallel. This change brings down the time to run a single cached test on one of those filesystems from 40s to about 8s.
Allow out of order dep graph node encoding
This allows out of order dep graph node encoding by also encoding the index instead of using the file node order as the index.
`MemEncoder` is also brought back to life and used for encoding.
Both of these are done to enable thread-local encoding of dep graph nodes.
This is based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139636.
Revert compiletest new-executor, to re-land without download-rustc
Revert <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139998> because the original merge triggered download-rustc, which messes with test metrics and prevents us from properly comparing them before/after the change.
The plan is to re-land this PR as-is, combined with a trivial compiler change to avoid download-rustc and get proper test metrics for comparison.
This reverts commit be181dd75c83d72fcc95538e235768bc367b76b9, reversing changes made to 645d0ad2a4f145ae576e442ec5c73c0f8eed829b.
r? ghost