compiler: fn ptrs should hit different lints based on ABI #142271
Merged
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
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
workingjubilee
changed the title
|
From my side this was deliberate: UNSUPPORTED_FN_PTR_CALLING_CONVENTIONS now also triggers for these newly deprecated calling conventions. I didn't think it'd be worth it to think much about triggering one lint vs the other here. |
RalfJung
reviewed
Jun 10, 2025
|
Ah, is this in preparation for #142134, i.e. to make UNSUPPORTED_FN_PTR_CALLING_CONVENTIONS a hard error Soon (TM)? In that case, yeah this LGTM. r=me with comment nit fixed. |
|
Yes, exactly! |
Co-authored-by: Ralf Jung <[email protected]>
|
@bors r=RalfJung |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
fmease
added a commit
to fmease/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2025
…fferent-lints, r=RalfJung compiler: fn ptrs should hit different lints based on ABI I was looking closer at the code for linting on ABIs and realized a mistake was probably made during rebase or review. I think that for function pointers in the HIR, the lint that fires should probably depend on the ABI we encountered, e.g. if it's on the newly-deprecated set of ABIs or not. This will be slightly confusing for a little bit, but I think we can do more to reduce that confusion by switching `unsupported_fn_ptr_calling_conventions` to a hard error. r? `@RalfJung`
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2025
Rollup of 14 pull requests Successful merges: - #134442 (Specify the behavior of `file!`) - #134841 (Look at proc-macro attributes when encountering unknown attribute) - #140372 (Exhaustively handle parsed attributes in CheckAttr) - #140766 (Stabilize keylocker) - #141642 (Note the version and PR of removed features when using it) - #141909 (Add central execution context to bootstrap) - #141992 (use `#[naked]` for `__rust_probestack`) - #142102 (docs: Small clarification on the usage of read_to_string and read_to_end trait methods) - #142124 (Allow transmute casts in pre-runtime-MIR) - #142240 (deduplicate the rest of AST walker functions) - #142258 (platform-support.md: Mention specific Linux kernel version or later) - #142262 (Mark `core::slice::memchr` as `#[doc(hidden)]`) - #142271 (compiler: fn ptrs should hit different lints based on ABI) - #142288 (const_eval: fix some outdated comments) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2025
Rollup of 16 pull requests Successful merges: - #134442 (Specify the behavior of `file!`) - #140372 (Exhaustively handle parsed attributes in CheckAttr) - #140766 (Stabilize keylocker) - #141642 (Note the version and PR of removed features when using it) - #141818 (Don't create .msi installer for gnullvm hosts) - #141909 (Add central execution context to bootstrap) - #141992 (use `#[naked]` for `__rust_probestack`) - #142101 (core::ptr: deduplicate more method docs) - #142102 (docs: Small clarification on the usage of read_to_string and read_to_end trait methods) - #142124 (Allow transmute casts in pre-runtime-MIR) - #142240 (deduplicate the rest of AST walker functions) - #142258 (platform-support.md: Mention specific Linux kernel version or later) - #142262 (Mark `core::slice::memchr` as `#[doc(hidden)]`) - #142271 (compiler: fn ptrs should hit different lints based on ABI) - #142275 (rustdoc: Refractor `clean_ty_generics`) - #142288 (const_eval: fix some outdated comments) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2025
Rollup merge of #142271 - workingjubilee:fn-ptrs-have-two-different-lints, r=RalfJung compiler: fn ptrs should hit different lints based on ABI I was looking closer at the code for linting on ABIs and realized a mistake was probably made during rebase or review. I think that for function pointers in the HIR, the lint that fires should probably depend on the ABI we encountered, e.g. if it's on the newly-deprecated set of ABIs or not. This will be slightly confusing for a little bit, but I think we can do more to reduce that confusion by switching `unsupported_fn_ptr_calling_conventions` to a hard error. r? ``@RalfJung``
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.
I was looking closer at the code for linting on ABIs and realized a mistake was probably made during rebase or review. I think that for function pointers in the HIR, the lint that fires should probably depend on the ABI we encountered, e.g. if it's on the newly-deprecated set of ABIs or not. This will be slightly confusing for a little bit, but I think we can do more to reduce that confusion by switching
unsupported_fn_ptr_calling_conventionsto a hard error.r? @RalfJung