self-contained linker: retry linking without `-fuse-ld=lld` on CCs that don't support it
For the self-contained linker, this PR applies [the strategy](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125330#issuecomment-2125119838) of retrying the linking step when the driver doesn't support `-fuse-ld=lld`, but with the option removed. This is the same strategy we already use of retrying when e.g. `-no-pie` is not supported.
Fixes#125330
r? `@petrochenkov`
I have no idea how we could add a test here, much like we don't have one for `-no-pie` or `-static-pie` -- let me know if you have ideas -- but I tested on a CentOS7 image:
```console
[root@d25b38376ede tmp]# ../build/host/stage1/bin/rustc helloworld.rs
WARN rustc_codegen_ssa:🔙:link The linker driver does not support `-fuse-ld=lld`. Retrying without it.
[root@d25b38376ede tmp]# readelf -p .comment helloworld
String dump of section '.comment':
[ 0] GCC: (GNU) 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-44)
[ 2d] rustc version 1.80.0-dev
```
I wasn't able to test with `cross` as the issue describes: I wasn't able to reproduce that behavior locally.
Expand `for_loops_over_fallibles` lint to lint on fallibles behind references.
Extends the scope of the (warn-by-default) lint `for_loops_over_fallibles` from just `for _ in x` where `x: Option<_>/Result<_, _>` to also cover `x: &(mut) Option<_>/Result<_>`
```rs
fn main() {
// Current lints
for _ in Some(42) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// New lints
for _ in &Some(42) {}
for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// Should not lint
for _ in Some(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter_mut() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter_mut() {}
}
```
<details><summary><code>cargo build</code> diff</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/old.out b/new.out
index 84215aa..ca195a7 100644
--- a/old.out
+++ b/new.out
`@@` -1,33 +1,93 `@@`
warning: for loop over an `Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:3:14
|
3 | for _ in Some(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(for_loops_over_fallibles)]` on by default
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
3 | while let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
3 | if let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
warning: for loop over a `Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:4:14
|
4 | for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
4 | while let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
4 | if let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
-warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 2 warnings
- Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.04s
+warning: for loop over a `&Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:7:14
+ |
+7 | for _ in &Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+7 | while let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+7 | if let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:8:14
+ |
+8 | for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+8 | while let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+8 | if let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:9:14
+ |
+9 | for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+9 | while let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+9 | if let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:10:14
+ |
+10 | for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+10 | while let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+10 | if let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 6 warnings
+ Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.02s
```
</details>
-----
Question:
* ~~Currently, the article `an` is used for `&Option`, and `&mut Option` in the lint diagnostic, since that's what `Option` uses. Is this okay or should it be changed? (likewise, `a` is used for `&Result` and `&mut Result`)~~ The article `a` is used for `&Option`, `&mut Option`, `&Result`, `&mut Result` and (as before) `Result`. Only `Option` uses `an` (as before).
`@rustbot` label +A-lint
Fix OutsideLoop's error suggestion: adding label `'block` for `if` block.
For OutsideLoop we should not suggest add `'block` label in `if` block, or we wiil get another err: block label not supported here.
fixes#123261
Add some tests for public-private dependencies.
This adds some tests to show more scenarios for the `exported_private_dependencies` lint. Several of these illustrate that the lint is not working as expected, and I have annotated those places with `FIXME`.
Note also that this includes some diamond dependency structures which compiletest doesn't exactly support. However, I don't think it should be a problem, it just results in the common dependency being built twice.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125043 (reference type safety invariant docs: clarification)
- #125306 (Force the inner coroutine of an async closure to `move` if the outer closure is `move` and `FnOnce`)
- #125355 (Use Backtrace::force_capture instead of Backtrace::capture in rustc_log)
- #125382 (rustdoc: rename `issue-\d+.rs` tests to have meaningful names (part 7))
- #125391 (Minor serialize/span tweaks)
- #125395 (Remove unnecessary `.md` from the documentation sidebar)
- #125399 (Stop using `to_hir_binop` in codegen)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Stop using `to_hir_binop` in codegen
This came up in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125359#discussion_r1609401311 , and looking into it we can just use the `mir::BinOp`s directly instead of `hir::BinOpKind`s.
(AKA rather than going `mir::BinOp` → `hir::BinOpKind` → `IntPredicate`, just go `mir::BinOp` → `IntPredicate`.)
Use Backtrace::force_capture instead of Backtrace::capture in rustc_log
After https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125063, the compiler and custom drivers won't automatically set the RUST_BACKTRACE environment variable anymore, so we have to call `Backtrace::force_capture` instead of `Backtrace::capture` to unconditionally capture a backtrace.
rustc_log handles enabling backtraces via env vars itself, so we don't want RUST_BACKTRACE to make a difference.
Force the inner coroutine of an async closure to `move` if the outer closure is `move` and `FnOnce`
See the detailed comment in `upvar.rs`.
Fixes#124867.
Fixes#124487.
r? oli-obk
reference type safety invariant docs: clarification
The old text could have been read as saying that you can call a function if these requirements are upheld, which is definitely not true as they are an underapproximation of the actual safety invariant.
I removed the part about functions relaxing the requirements via their documentation... this seems incoherent with saying that it may actually be unsound to ever temporarily violate the requirement. Furthermore, a function *cannot* just relax this for its return value, that would in general be unsound. And the part about "unsafe code in a safe function may assume these invariants are ensured of arguments passed by the caller" also interacts with relaxing things: clearly, if the invariant has been relaxed, unsafe code cannot rely on it any more. There may be a place to give general guidance on what kinds of function contracts can exist, but the reference type is definitely not the right place to write that down.
I also took a clarification from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121965 that is orthogonal to the rest of that PR.
Cc ```@joshlf``` ```@scottmcm```
This has no noticeable effect, but it makes these cases follow the
guidelines in the comments on `Spacing`, which say that `Joint` should
be used "for each token that (a) should be pretty-printed without a
space after it, and (b) is followed by a punctuation token".
These two tokens are both followed by a comma, which is a punctuation
token.
- Name the colon span as `colon_span` to distinguish it from the other
`span` local variable.
- Just use basic pattern matching, which is easier to read than `map_or`.
Guillaume Gomez