This saves us both the Freeze/Unpin queries, and avoids placing
noalias attributes, which have a compile-time impact on LLVM
even in optnone builds (due to always_inline functions).

We don't have any known noalias bugs for LLVM 12 ... yet.

Such structures may contain self-references, in which case the
same location may be accessible through a pointer that is not
based-on the noalias pointer.

This is still grey area as far as language semantics are concerned,
but checking for !Unpin as an indicator for self-referential
sturctures seems like a good approach for the meantime.

Currently, the print helper macro performs 'recollection' by doing
`token_stream.into_iter().collect()`. However, this will not affect
nonterminals that occur nested inside delimited groups, since the
wrapping delimited group will be left untouched.

This commit adds 'deep recollection', which recursively recollects every
delimited group in the token stream. As with normal recollection, we
only print out something if deep recollection results in a different
stringified token stream.

This is useful for catching bugs where we update the AST of a
nonterminal (which affects pretty-printing), but do not update the
attatched `TokenStream`

With this PR, we now lint for all cases where we perform some kind of
proc-macro back-compat hack.

The `js-sys` had an internal fix made to properly handle
`None`-delimited groups, so we need to manually check the version in the
filename. As a result, we no longer apply the back-compat hack to cases
where the version number is missing file the file path. This should not
affect any users of the `crates.io` crate.

make changes to liveness to use closure_min_captures

use different span

borrow check uses new structures

rename to CapturedPlace

stop using upvar_capture in regionck

remove the bridge

cleanup from rebase + remove the upvar_capture reference from mutability_errors.rs

remove line from livenes test

make our unused var checking more consistent

update tests

adding more warnings to the tests

move is_ancestor_or_same_capture to rustc_middle/ty

update names to reflect the closures

add FIXME

check that all captures are immutable borrows before returning

add surrounding if statement like the original

move var out of the loop and rename
Co-authored-by: NLogan Mosier <logmosier@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: NRoxane Fruytier <roxane.fruytier@hotmail.com>

Unlike the other cases of this lint, there's no simple way to detect if
an old version of the relevant crate (`syn`) is in use. The `actix-web`
crate only depends on `pin-project` v1.0.0, so checking the version of
`actix-web` does not guarantee that a new enough version of
`pin-project` (and therefore `syn`) is in use.

Instead, we rely on the fact that virtually all of the regressed crates
are pinned to a pre-1.0 version of `pin-project`. When this is the case,
bumping the `actix-web` dependency will pull in the *latest* version of
`pin-project`, which has an explicit dependency on a newer v dependency
on a newer version of `syn`.

The lint message tells users to update `actix-web`, since that's what
they're most likely to have control over. We could potentially tell them
to run `cargo update -p syn`, but I think it's more straightforward to
suggest an explicit change to the `Cargo.toml`

The `actori-web` fork had its last commit over a year ago, and appears
to just be a renamed fork of `actix-web`. Therefore, I've removed the
`actori-web` check entirely - any crates that actually get broken can
simply update `syn` themselves.

async-pub check created a regression for default

Redirects `const? async? unsafe? pub` to `pub const? async? unsafe?`.

Fix #76437

Previously, there was no way to add a custom tool prefix, even if the tool
itself had registered a lint:

 ```
 #![feature(register_tool)]
 #![register_tool(xyz)]
 #![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
 ```

```
$ rustc unknown-lint.rs  --crate-type lib
error[E0710]: an unknown tool name found in scoped lint: `xyz::my_lint`
 --> unknown-lint.rs:3:9
  |
3 | #![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
  |         ^^^
```

This allows opting-in to lints from other tools using `register_tool`.

When cg_llvm encounters the `-Ctarget-cpu=native` it computes an
explciit set of features that applies to the target in order to
correctly compile code for the host CPU (because e.g. `skylake` alone is
not sufficient to tell if some of the instructions are available or
not).

However there were a couple of issues with how we did this. Firstly, the
order in which features were overriden wasn't quite right – conceptually
you'd expect `-Ctarget-cpu=native` option to override the features that
are implicitly set by the target definition. However due to how other
`-Ctarget-cpu` values are handled we must adopt the following order
of priority:

* Features from -Ctarget-cpu=*; are overriden by
* Features implied by --target; are overriden by
* Features from -Ctarget-feature; are overriden by
* function specific features.

Another problem was in that the function level `target-features`
attribute would overwrite the entire set of the globally enabled
features, rather than just the features the
`#[target_feature(enable/disable)]` specified. With something like
`-Ctarget-cpu=native` we'd end up in a situation wherein a function
without `#[target_feature(enable)]` annotation would have a broader
set of features compared to a function with one such attribute. This
turned out to be a cause of heavy run-time regressions in some code
using these function-level attributes in conjunction with
`-Ctarget-cpu=native`, for example.

With this PR rustc is more careful about specifying the entire set of
features for functions that use `#[target_feature(enable/disable)]` or
`#[instruction_set]` attributes.

Sadly testing the original reproducer for this behaviour is quite
impossible – we cannot rely on `-Ctarget-cpu=native` to be anything in
particular on developer or CI machines.

Right now, rustdoc users have an unpleasant situation: they can either
use the new tool lint names (`rustdoc::non_autolinks`) or they can use
the old names (`non_autolinks`). If they use the tool lints, they get a
hard error on stable compilers, because rustc rejects all tool names it
doesn't recognize. If they use the old name, they get a warning to
rename the lint to the new name. The only way to compile without
warnings is to add `#[allow(renamed_removed_lints)]`, which defeats the
whole point of the change: we *want* people to switch to the new name.

To avoid people silencing the lint and never migrating to the tool lint,
this avoids warning about the old name, while still allowing you to use
the new name. Once the new `rustdoc` tool name makes it to the stable
channel, we can change these lints to warn again.

This adds the new lint functions `register_alias` and `register_ignored`
- I didn't see an existing way to do this.

83054 introduced validation of scalar range attributes, but panicking
code that uses the attribute remained reachable. Use `delay_span_bug`
instead to avoid the ICE.

We now lint on *any* use of `procedural-masquerade` crate. While this
crate still exists, its main reverse dependency (`cssparser`) no longer
depends on it. Any crates still depending off should stop doing so, as
it only exists to support very old Rust versions.

If a crate actually needs to support old versions of rustc via
`procedural-masquerade`, then they'll just need to accept the warning
until we remove it entirely (at the same time as the back-compat hack).
The latest version of `procedural-masquerade` does not work with the
latest rustc, but trying to check for the version seems like more
trouble than it's worth.

While working on this, I realized that the `proc-macro-hack` check was
never actually doing anything. The corresponding enum variant in
`proc-macro-hack` is named `Value` or `Nested` - it has never been
called `Input`. Due to a strange Crater issue, the Crater run that
tested adding this did *not* end up testing it - some of the crates that
would have failed did not actually have their tests checked, making it
seem as though the `proc-macro-hack` check was working.

The Crater issue is being discussed at
https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242791-t-infra/topic/Nearly.20identical.20Crater.20runs.20processed.20a.20crate.20differently/near/230406661

Despite the `proc-macro-hack` check not actually doing anything, we
haven't gotten any reports from users about their build being broken.
I went ahead and removed it entirely, since it's clear that no one is
being affected by the `proc-macro-hack` regression in practice.