-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Tracking issue for future-incompatibility lint unsupported_fn_ptr_calling_conventions
#130260
Labels
A-ABI
Area: Concerning the application binary interface (ABI)
A-lint
Area: Lints (warnings about flaws in source code) such as unused_mut.
C-future-incompatibility
Category: Future-incompatibility lints
C-tracking-issue
Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Comments
rustbot
added
the
needs-triage
This issue may need triage. Remove it if it has been sufficiently triaged.
label
Sep 12, 2024
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
rustbot
added
C-future-incompatibility
Category: Future-incompatibility lints
C-tracking-issue
Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature.
labels
Sep 12, 2024
compiler-errors
removed
needs-triage
This issue may need triage. Remove it if it has been sufficiently triaged.
labels
Sep 12, 2024
fmease
added
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
A-ABI
Area: Concerning the application binary interface (ABI)
labels
Sep 14, 2024
fmease
changed the title
Tracking issue for
Tracking issue for Sep 14, 2024
UNSUPPORTED_FN_PTR_CALLING_CONVENTIONS
future compatibility lintUNSUPPORTED_FN_PTR_CALLING_CONVENTIONS
future-incompatibility lint
fmease
changed the title
Tracking issue for
Tracking issue for future-incompatibility lint Sep 14, 2024
UNSUPPORTED_FN_PTR_CALLING_CONVENTIONS
future-incompatibility lintunsupported_fn_ptr_calling_conventions
fmease
added
the
A-lint
Area: Lints (warnings about flaws in source code) such as unused_mut.
label
Sep 14, 2024
This was referenced Oct 4, 2024
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 12, 2024
…iler-errors Check ABI target compatibility for function pointers Tracking issue: rust-lang#130260 Related tracking issue: rust-lang#87678 Compatibility of an ABI for a target was previously only performed on function definitions and `extern` blocks. This PR adds it also to function pointers to be consistent. This might have broken some of the `tests/ui/` depending on the platform, so a try run seems like a good idea. Also this might break existing code, because we now emit extra errors. Does this require a crater run? # Example ```rust // build with: --target=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu // These raise E0570 extern "thiscall" fn foo() {} extern "thiscall" { fn bar() } // This did not raise any error fn baz(f: extern "thiscall" fn()) { f() } ``` # Open Questions * [x] Should this report a future incompatibility warning like rust-lang#87678 ? * [ ] Is this the best place to perform the check?
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 12, 2024
…iler-errors Check ABI target compatibility for function pointers Tracking issue: rust-lang#130260 Related tracking issue: rust-lang#87678 Compatibility of an ABI for a target was previously only performed on function definitions and `extern` blocks. This PR adds it also to function pointers to be consistent. This might have broken some of the `tests/ui/` depending on the platform, so a try run seems like a good idea. Also this might break existing code, because we now emit extra errors. Does this require a crater run? # Example ```rust // build with: --target=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu // These raise E0570 extern "thiscall" fn foo() {} extern "thiscall" { fn bar() } // This did not raise any error fn baz(f: extern "thiscall" fn()) { f() } ``` # Open Questions * [x] Should this report a future incompatibility warning like rust-lang#87678 ? * [ ] Is this the best place to perform the check?
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 13, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#128784 - tdittr:check-abi-on-fn-ptr, r=compiler-errors Check ABI target compatibility for function pointers Tracking issue: rust-lang#130260 Related tracking issue: rust-lang#87678 Compatibility of an ABI for a target was previously only performed on function definitions and `extern` blocks. This PR adds it also to function pointers to be consistent. This might have broken some of the `tests/ui/` depending on the platform, so a try run seems like a good idea. Also this might break existing code, because we now emit extra errors. Does this require a crater run? # Example ```rust // build with: --target=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu // These raise E0570 extern "thiscall" fn foo() {} extern "thiscall" { fn bar() } // This did not raise any error fn baz(f: extern "thiscall" fn()) { f() } ``` # Open Questions * [x] Should this report a future incompatibility warning like rust-lang#87678 ? * [ ] Is this the best place to perform the check?
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 14, 2024
…age, r=compiler-errors Update lint message for ABI not supported Tracking issue: rust-lang#130260 As requested in rust-lang#128784 (review) I updated the error message. I could also change it to be the same message as if it was a hard error on a normal function: > "`{abi}` is not a supported ABI for the current target" Or would that get confusing when people try to google the error message? r? compiler-errors
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 14, 2024
…age, r=compiler-errors Update lint message for ABI not supported Tracking issue: rust-lang#130260 As requested in rust-lang#128784 (review) I updated the error message. I could also change it to be the same message as if it was a hard error on a normal function: > "`{abi}` is not a supported ABI for the current target" Or would that get confusing when people try to google the error message? r? compiler-errors
compiler-errors
added a commit
to compiler-errors/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 15, 2024
…age, r=compiler-errors Update lint message for ABI not supported Tracking issue: rust-lang#130260 As requested in rust-lang#128784 (review) I updated the error message. I could also change it to be the same message as if it was a hard error on a normal function: > "`{abi}` is not a supported ABI for the current target" Or would that get confusing when people try to google the error message? r? compiler-errors
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 15, 2024
…age, r=compiler-errors Update lint message for ABI not supported Tracking issue: rust-lang#130260 As requested in rust-lang#128784 (review) I updated the error message. I could also change it to be the same message as if it was a hard error on a normal function: > "`{abi}` is not a supported ABI for the current target" Or would that get confusing when people try to google the error message? r? compiler-errors
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Oct 15, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#131675 - tdittr:update-unsupported-abi-message, r=compiler-errors Update lint message for ABI not supported Tracking issue: rust-lang#130260 As requested in rust-lang#128784 (review) I updated the error message. I could also change it to be the same message as if it was a hard error on a normal function: > "`{abi}` is not a supported ABI for the current target" Or would that get confusing when people try to google the error message? r? compiler-errors
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
A-ABI
Area: Concerning the application binary interface (ABI)
A-lint
Area: Lints (warnings about flaws in source code) such as unused_mut.
C-future-incompatibility
Category: Future-incompatibility lints
C-tracking-issue
Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
This is the summary issue for the
unsupported_fn_ptr_calling_conventions
future-compatibility warning. The goal of this page is describe why this change was made and how you can fix code that is affected by it. It also provides a place to ask questions or register a complaint if you feel the change should not be made. For more information on the policy around future-compatibility warnings, see our breaking change policy guidelines.What is the warning for?
The
unsupported_fn_ptr_calling_conventions
lint is output whenever there is a use of a target dependent calling convention on a target that does not support this calling convention on a function pointer.For example
stdcall
does not make much sense for a x86_64 or, more apparently, powerpc code, because this calling convention was never specified for those targets.Example
This will produce:
Explanation
On most of the targets the behavior of
stdcall
and similar calling conventions is not defined at all, but was previously accepted due to a bug in the implementation of the compiler.Recommendations
Use
#[cfg(…)]
annotations to ensure that the ABI identifiers are only used in combination with targets for which the requested ABI is well specified.When will this warning become a hard error?
At the beginning of each 6-week release cycle, the Rust compiler team will review the set of outstanding future compatibility warnings and nominate some of them for Final Comment Period. Toward the end of the cycle, we will review any comments and make a final determination whether to convert the warning into a hard error or remove it entirely.
Implemented in #128784
See also #87678 for the similar
unsupported_calling_conventions
lint.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: