Rollup of 6 pull requests#155011
Merged
rust-bors[bot] merged 19 commits intorust-lang:mainfrom Apr 9, 2026
Merged
Conversation
…classes Add new Hexagon inline asm register classes: - reg_pair: GPR double registers (r1:0 through r27:26) for i64/f64 types - vreg: HVX vector registers (v0-v31) for mode-dependent vector types - vreg_pair: HVX vector pair registers (v1:0 through v31:30) for vector pairs - qreg: HVX predicate registers (q0-q3), clobber-only Key implementation details: - GPR pairs use LLVM's 'd' register naming (d0-d13) for constraints - HVX vector pairs use LLVM's 'w' register naming (w0-w15) for constraints - Register overlap tracking for GPR pair<->single and HVX pair<->single conflicts - HVX vector types are mode-dependent (64B vs 128B HVX length) Note: vreg_quad (HVX vector quads) is not supported as LLVM's Hexagon backend does not support vector quad types in inline asm constraints.
The AST pretty printer produces invalid Rust when a block expression is
the base of an index operation inside a macro expansion. This is a gap
in the existing `FixupContext` parenthesization machinery — the approach
handles statement position but not the case where a block-index is
nested inside another expression.
The following is a correct program:
```rust
macro_rules! block_arr {
() => {{ [0u8; 4] }};
}
macro_rules! as_slice {
() => {{ &block_arr!()[..] }};
}
fn main() { let _: &[u8] = as_slice!(); }
```
But `rustc -Zunpretty=expanded` produces output that is not valid Rust,
because the closing brace of `{ [0u8; 4] }` creates a statement
boundary, causing the parser to treat `[..]` as a separate expression:
```rust
fn main() { let _: &[u8] = { &{ [0u8; 4] }[..] }; }
```
```
error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `}`, or an operator, found `[`
```
Fixed output after this change:
```rust
fn main() { let _: &[u8] = { &({ [0u8; 4] })[..] }; }
```
Since `{ ... }[...]` never parses as indexing a block regardless of
context, the fix unconditionally parenthesizes "complete" expressions
(block, match, if, loop, etc.) when they appear as the base of an index
operation.
When a macro expands to a call whose callee is a block (or other "complete" expression like `match`, `if`, `loop`), the AST pretty printer emits the callee without parentheses. In statement position the closing brace ends the expression and the argument list is parsed as a separate tuple expression, producing a parse error.
being faster to compile 😭
I'm ignoring the fact that there's a feature to change the behavior of the syntax. I just want to help prevent confusing the people reading the docs.
… have special syntax I'm ignoring the fact that there's a feature to change the behavior of the syntax. I just want to help prevent confusing the people reading the docs.
…athanBrouwer Remove `BuiltinLintDiag` Part of rust-lang#153099. We're finally getting rid of `BuiltinLintDiag`! \o/ Next step, `AttributeLint`. :3 r? @JonathanBrouwer
…ion, r=mati865 test `#[naked]` with `#[link_section = "..."]` on windows As a part of rust-lang#147811 I ran into that we actually don't match (current) LLVM output. r? @mati865
…ter-classes, r=JohnTitor Hexagon inline asm: add reg_pair, vreg, vreg_pair, and qreg register classes Add three new register classes for the Hexagon inline assembly backend: * `reg_pair`: GPR double registers (r1:0 through r27:26) * `vreg`: HVX vector registers (v0-v31) * `qreg`: HVX predicate registers (q0-q3), clobber-only for now
Parenthesize block-like expressions in index base of pretty printer The AST pretty printer produces invalid Rust when a block expression is the base of an index operation inside a macro expansion. This is a gap in the parenthesization fix from rust-lang#119105 — the `FixupContext` approach handles statement position but not the case where a block-index is nested inside another expression. The following is a correct program: ```rust macro_rules! block_arr { () => {{ [0u8; 4] }}; } macro_rules! as_slice { () => {{ &block_arr!()[..] }}; } fn main() { let _: &[u8] = as_slice!(); } ``` But `rustc -Zunpretty=expanded` produces output that is not valid Rust, because the closing brace of `{ [0u8; 4] }` creates a statement boundary, causing the parser to treat `[..]` as a separate expression: ```rust fn main() { let _: &[u8] = { &{ [0u8; 4] }[..] }; } ``` ``` error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `}`, or an operator, found `[` ``` Fixed output after this change: ```rust fn main() { let _: &[u8] = { &({ [0u8; 4] })[..] }; } ``` Since `{ ... }[...]` never parses as indexing a block regardless of context, the fix unconditionally parenthesizes "complete" expressions (block, match, if, loop, etc.) when they appear as the base of an index operation.
…tive, r=JonathanBrouwer make `expected_literal` positive r? @JonathanBrouwer
…ross35 Clarify that `core::range` ranges do not have special syntax r? @tgross35
rustbot
added
A-attributes
Contributor
Author
Contributor
rust-bors
bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
rust-bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 8, 2026
Rollup of 6 pull requests try-job: dist-various-1 try-job: test-various try-job: x86_64-gnu-aux try-job: x86_64-gnu-llvm-21-3 try-job: x86_64-msvc-1 try-job: aarch64-apple try-job: x86_64-mingw-1
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Contributor
rust-bors
bot
added
merged-by-bors
Contributor
Contributor
|
☀️ Test successful - CI, Post merge analysis |
Collaborator
|
📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:
previous master: 9004856428 In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: |
Contributor
What is this?This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.Comparing 9004856 (parent) -> d0442e2 (this PR) Test differencesShow 87 test diffsStage 1
Stage 2
Additionally, 78 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy. Job group index
Test dashboardRun cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
test-dashboard d0442e2800d356ae282ddcdbe0eff8798fe648b6 --output-dir test-dashboardAnd then open Job duration changes
How to interpret the job duration changes?Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance |
This was referenced Apr 9, 2026
Open
Collaborator
|
Finished benchmarking commit (d0442e2): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - please read:Our benchmarks found a performance regression caused by this PR. Next Steps:
@rustbot label: +perf-regression Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary -0.7%, secondary 2.1%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
CyclesResults (secondary -2.8%)A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.
Binary sizeThis perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 489.506s -> 489.468s (-0.01%) |
Contributor
Author
rustbot
added
the
perf-regression-triaged
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
9 participants
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:
BuiltinLintDiag#154912 (RemoveBuiltinLintDiag)#[naked]with#[link_section = "..."]on windows #154598 (test#[naked]with#[link_section = "..."]on windows)expected_literalpositive #154893 (makeexpected_literalpositive)core::rangeranges do not have special syntax #155002 (Clarify thatcore::rangeranges do not have special syntax)r? @ghost
Create a similar rollup