---
# System prepended metadata

title: Triage meeting 2025-05-07
tags: [triage-meeting, T-lang, minutes]

---

---
title: Triage meeting 2025-05-07
tags: ["T-lang", "triage-meeting", "minutes"]
date: 2025-05-07
discussion: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/410673-t-lang.2Fmeetings/topic/Triage.20meeting.202025-05-07
url: https://hackmd.io/7tqK2M16QfyGyIBTORiV1A
---

# T-lang meeting agenda

- Meeting date: 2025-05-07

## Attendance

- People: TC, tmandry, scottmcm, Josh, Mara, Sarah Quinones, martinomburajr, Amanieu

## Meeting roles

- Minutes, driver: TC

## Scheduled meetings

- 2025-05-07: Extended triage

Edit the schedule here: https://github.com/orgs/rust-lang/projects/31/views/7.

## Announcements or custom items

(Meeting attendees, feel free to add items here!)

### Guest attendee items

TC: For any guests who are present, please note in this section if you're attending for the purposes of any items on (or off) the agenda in particular.

### Moving right along

TC: As we've been doing recently, due to the impressive backlog, I'm going to push the pace a bit.  If it's ever too fast or you need a moment before we move on, please raise a hand and we'll pause.

### Design meeting at 12:30 EST / 09:30 PST / 17:30 CET

TC: Remember that we have a design/planning meeting that starts half an hour after this call ends.

### Next meeting with RfL

We're next meeting with RfL on 2025-05-07 to review the status of RfL project goals.

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3614

## Rust 2025 review

### Meta

TC: We should start thinking about Rust 2025.

Our motivating priorities are:

- Make every edition a success.
- Do so without requiring heroics from anyone.
    - ...or stressing anyone or everyone out.

The tentative timeline will be:

| Date       | Version       | Edition stage                  |
|------------|---------------|--------------------------------|
| 2025-04-03 | Release v1.86 | Checking off items...          |
| 2025-05-15 | Release v1.87 | Checking off items...          |
| 2025-06-26 | Release v1.88 | Checking off items...          |
| 2025-08-07 | Release v1.89 | Checking off items...          |
| 2025-09-12 | Branch  v1.91 | Go / no go on all items        |
| 2025-09-18 | Release v1.90 |                                |
| 2025-10-24 | Branch  v1.92 | Stabilize Rust 2025 on nightly |
| 2025-10-30 | Release v1.91 | Rust 2025 nightly beta         |
| 2025-12-05 | Branch v1.93  | Cut Rust 2025 to beta          |
| 2025-12-11 | Release v1.92 | Announce Rust 2025 is pending  |
| 2026-01-22 | Release v1.93 | Release Rust 2025              |


None.

## Nominated RFCs, PRs, and issues

### "Spurious irrefutable_let_patterns warning with let-chain" rust#139369

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139369

TC: Ralf wants us to not lint against:

```rust
fn max() -> usize {
    42
}

fn main() {
    if let mx = max() && mx < usize::MAX {
        // ...
    }
}
```


In the last meeting, we had a long discussion and decided to remove this lint entirely.  After the meeting, tmandry raised a concern about this.  I've suggested the concern actually generalizes to any trivial condition.

The original consensus:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139369#issuecomment-2842997955

The concern:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139369#issuecomment-2843953637

My proposed generalization:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139369#issuecomment-2844147025

Anyway, what do we think?

tmandry: What pushed me over the line is what Swift does and how it spells `if let Some(x) = y`.

TC: My view is that an irrefutable let expression is just a trivially true expression.  Also, I don't like getting pushed around on language design by other languages.

scottmcm: I see a distinction here between type based triviality and value-based triviality.

scottmcm: `if false` can be useful so that all the real arms align better.

TC: That argument is the same one that Niko made in favor of irrefutable let expressions.  I still see these as very similar, though analyzing it as value-based vs type-based is interesting.

scottmcm: Another angle is we might ask whether this is really a `rustc` lint versus a clippy lint.  How important is it that we lint about it versus clippy.  People seem to want to write these things.  If it's just a style thing, do we need to do it?

tmandry: We were thinking that last time.  But if people think the syntax works the way that it does in Swift, people will get confused.

```rust
fn foo() -> Option<u32> {
    None
}

fn main() {
    if let x = foo() {
        println!("{:?}", x);
    }
}
```

scottmcm: You still have a type system check here unless you're doing something like the `Debug` print there.

Josh: I feel like trying to push something only Clippy creates two classes of lints that make our story less coherent about "what a Rust lint is".  It feels like it creates a policy about two classes of lints.

scottmcm: We have that policy.  The `rustc` lints are important and matter.  I've always held that "if you need to use `allow` then it's not a `rustc` lint."  On the other hand, `clippy` lints are opinionated.  There's a difference between the two of them.

Josh: I feel like this is the difference between allow-by-default and warn-by-default.

TC: Setting aside where it would live, I'd like to have a lint group for "I'm a C programmer, what's going to confuse me about Rust", or "I'm a Swift programmer, what's going to confuse me about Rust".

Josh: +1, interesting.

scottmcm: I wouldn't want that to be a `rustc` lint.  It's not clear when a team has e.g. enough Swift programmers that they should check in this lint.

TC: That's similar to why I don't really like this one as a `rustc` lint based on the Swift argument.

TC: We're going to pull the ejection handle on this one.  We'll take it up later.

### "RFC: Add an attribute for raising the alignment of various items" rfcs#3806

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3806

TC: Based on our request, and to help us on,

- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140261

Jules Bertholet has filed this RFC proposing `#[align(..)]`.  What do we think?

scottmcm: This generally makes sense to me.  Fortunately this doesn't introduce the problems that `repr(packed)` does.

TC: Sounds like we'll all read this one more carefully, then maybe we put this in a design meeting slot so we can unblock the other stabilization.

### "Support for pointers with asm_const" rust#128464

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128464

TC: Niko nominates to ask whether extending `const`  for asm needs an RFC.  What do we think?

Amanieu: We'd want to document the expansion of `const` for this.  There's a general sense that we want this functionality.

TC: It's seems OK to do that and treat this as an extension.

Josh: OK to waive an RFC but we'd need a clear reference patch to document the semantics.

TC: Agreed.

scottmcm: It does feel different maybe that the value being inserted is a relocation.

Sarah:

```rust
// this is valid asm
asm!(
   "lea rax, [rbx + {N}]",
   // -> lea rax, [rbx + 3]
   N = const 3,
)

// this is not valid asm
asm!(
   "lea rax, [rbx + {N}]",
   // -> lea rax, [rbx + [rip + three_symbol]]
   N = const &3,
)

// Amanieu: We could just do this instead.
//
// Sarah: this is what sym does.
asm!(
   "lea rax, {N}",
   // -> lea rax,  [rip + three_symbol]
   N = const &3,
)
```

// Sarah: What does this expand to?
```rust
asm!(
   "lea rax, {N}",
   // -> lea rax, [0]
   N = const null::<()>(),
)
```

Amanieu: I've used the const to be part of the mnemonic.

scottmcm: Oh, interesting.  So `vfnmadd213sd ` where the numbers come from consts, or similar?

Amanieu: Yes, something like that.

TC: OK, I've changed my mind.  I'd like an RFC.  Also, Sarah, if you could leave a comment on the issue, that'd be great.

Sarah: Will do.

Amanieu: I'm not sure this needs an RFC.  The only open question here is what we should call this.  I think everything else has easy answers here.

scottmcm: If it's an easy RFC to write, all the better.

TC: Agreed, it doesn't need to be a long RFC necessarily.

### "Handling of stdcall (and other x86-32-specific ABIs) on non-x86-32 Windows targets is inconsistent" rust#137018

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/137018

TC: Ralf and company want to move to only accepting ABIs on targets where they make sense.  We need to give a signal here about our happiness with the direction and the plan, and then we con do our FCP on the stabilization as usual.

Start with the comment here:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/137018#issuecomment-2851043788

What do we think?

Amanieu: C compilers have allowed this to make it somewhat easier to migrate code, and have ignored it.

Josh: We don't have this legacy code problem.  However, we also don't have a good `cfg_attr` system for these `extern` ABIs.

Amanieu: We do have the "system" ABI, which is exactly this.

scottmcm: I think last time we discussed this we said that if you need to do this a ton you can write a proc macro that lets you apply the extern from an attribute.

Josh: I'd favor having a lint for this, then we need to know what the lint recommends.

Amanieu: Definitely agree that this is something we should phase out.

TC: So are we OK directionally with what RalfJ outlined?

(Discussion to the effect of whether we'd want to go all the way or whether just linting is enough.)

ABI selection with macros: https://github.com/Amanieu/corosensei/blob/a4d881017dd0e50461c0205207e3906d6e295728/src/unwind.rs#L79

TC: OK, it seems we're directionally OK with RalfJ's plan.

### "Remove `i128` and `u128` from `improper_ctypes_definitions`" rust#137306

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137306

TC: Trevor Gross proposes:

> Rust's 128-bit integers have historically been incompatible with C...
>
> At [rust-lang/lang-team#255 (comment)](https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/255#issuecomment-2088855084), the lang team considered it acceptable to remove `i128` from `improper_ctypes_definitions` if the LLVM version is known to be compatible. Time has elapsed since then and we have dropped support for LLVM versions that do not have the x86 fixes, meaning a per-llvm-version lint should no longer be necessary. The PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS changes only came in LLVM 20 but since Rust's datalayouts have also been updated to match, we will be using the correct alignment regardless of LLVM version.

What do we think?

TC: It looks like I proposed FCP merge here and then immediately filed some concerns.  The one about a point that nikic raised is still seemingly outstanding.

scottmcm: The value of this lint has always been a bit uncertain.  I worry that to resolve this we'd have to first figure out the purpose of this lint.

TC: How do we move this one off our list?

Amanieu: We should document in the Reference the mapping from C to Rust here.

scottmcm: The problem is that C doesn't have the 128-bit type except `__bits`.

scottmcm: Does this lint have value anyway?

Amanieu: It's helped me to catch bugs.

scottmcm: For the 128-bit types, it might be the case that these work well enough that it's just not worth linting about these any longer.  E.g., we have it working well enough for the platforms people are actually using.

Amanieu: I think we just need to make it clear that this lint is no the reference of what Rust considers to be ABI compatible with C.

TC: OK, we have three checkboxes, I'll leave a comment and unnominate and resolve the concern I filed.  And this will go into FCP.

### "Guarantee behavior of transmuting `Option::<T>::None` subject to NPO" rust#137323

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137323

TC: joshif writes:

> In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115333, we added a guarantee that transmuting from `[0u8; N]` to `Option<P>` is sound where `P` is a pointer type subject to the null pointer optimization (NPO). It would be useful to be able to guarantee the inverse - that a `None::<P>` value can be transmutes to an array and that will yield `[0u8; N]`.

TC: RalfJ seems to be on board.  What do we think?

Josh: This is already true for FFI.  If we were to break this, it'd break a lot of code.  I'll proposed FCP.

TC: OK, it's now in FCP.

### "Lang proposal: `extern "unspecified"` for naked functions with arbitrary ABI" rust#140566

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140566

TC: tgross35 proposes that we add an ABI for functions that Rust neither knows how to construct or how to call.  These have to be declared then with either `unsafe extern` or with naked asm, and they can only be called with asm.  Function pointers to them can still be passed around.

Amanieu has confirmed he wants this and that it makes sense.  I'm happy to champion it, and I'm happy to treat this as an extension rather than asking for an RFC here.

That sound right to us?  There's nothing else for us to do here at the moment other than to signal general interest.

scottmcm: Sounds great.  I've left a +1 comment.

scottmcm: Another way I might think about this is as unsafe binders for function ABIs.

TC: OK, sounds like we're game for it.

(We lost scottmcm at this point.)

### "Oddity with lifetime elision and type aliases" rust#140611

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140611

This behavior isn't documented correctly the Reference, and it's unclear whether it should be or whether we might want to fix it as a language matter:

```rust
pub struct W<'a>(&'a ());
pub type Alias<'a> = W<'a>;

impl<'a> Alias<'a> {
    fn f1<'x>(self: &W<'a>, x: &'x ()) -> &() { x } //~ `'_ == 'x`, what?
    fn f2<'x>(self: &Alias<'a>, x: &'x ()) -> &() { x } //~ `'_ == 'x`, what?
    fn f3<'x>(&self, _: &'x ()) -> &() { self.0 } //~ OK.
}

impl<'a> W<'a> {
    fn f4<'x>(self: &W<'a>, _: &'x ()) -> &() { self.0 } //~ OK.
    fn f5<'x>(self: &Alias<'a>, x: &'x ()) -> &() { x } //~ `'_ == 'x`, what?
    fn f6<'x>(&self, _: &'x ()) -> &() { self.0 } //~ OK.
}
```

Anyone know about this?

Josh: This absolutely looks like a bug in Rust to me.  We shouldn't write this down; we should bug report it, which this is, and then crater run it.

### "UnsafePinned: also include the effects of UnsafeCell" rust#140638

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140638

TC: We don't seem to have much option, given

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/137750

but to allow aliasing an `&UnsafePinned<T>`, and it follows that `&UnsafePinned<T>` should probably be a kind of superset of the capabilities of `&UnsafeCell<T>`.

Sound right?  We just need to signal happiness with this direction.

Josh: I think this seems reasonable.

### "Confusing error when a const contains a shared ref to interior mutable data" rust#140653

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140653

TC: RalfJ raises that we give a bogus error about this code:

```rust
use std::sync::atomic::*;
static FOO: AtomicU32 = AtomicU32::new(0);
const C: &'static AtomicU32 = &FOO;
```

One option is that we could choose to accept this code.  If we do, then we must error if this constant is used in a pattern (the error is still pre-mono).  The other option is to forbid it, but say more correctly why we are.

What do we think?

TC: Personally, I'd like to allow this and to give the error when someone tries to use it in a pattern.

Josh: Because this is a valid constant but not a valid pattern.  It's already a bit questionable that we allow arbitrary constants in patterns, so if this is a special case where we don't, then "sure, fine".

TC: +1.

Josh: I think this generally is useful as a pattern for translating C globals in a reasonable way. It's safer than `static mut`.

TC: OK, two of us are on board at least.

### "Split up the `unknown_or_malformed_diagnostic_attributes` lint" rust#140717

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140717

TC: mejrs wants to break up a lint.  The motivation is related to holding a lower MSRV.

What do we think?

Josh: (Explains motivation.)

TC: Does this tie in at all with `cfg(version(..))` or `cfg(accessible(..))`?

Josh: It'd make it a bit less necessary.

TC: OK.

Josh: I'll propose FCP merge.

### "Add core::ptr::assume_moved" rfcs#3700

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3700

TC: We're being asked for a vibe check on this one.  Vibes?

Josh: Broadly speaking this seems reasonable.  The name is terrible though.

Amanieu: Logically what you're doing is moving this higher in memory, by setting the high bits of the pointer.

Josh: Conceivably, you could use this for low bit tagging.

Amanieu: Maybe.

(Discussion and reading.)

TC: I agree with RalfJ that "assume" isn't a great part of the name here.

Josh: The name `move` is growing on me, quite a lot, given how this is leaning into `noalias`.  Agree also about "assume" being maybe not great.

TC: Agree "move" is right.

TC: OK, our vibe is that we like the idea, and we'll of course bikeshed on the name and whatnot.

### "#[deprecated] lint doesn't trigger when overriding deprecated method" rust#98990

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98990

TC: Mara asks about this:

> This doesn't give any warnings, even though std::error::Error::description is deprecated:
>
> impl std::error::Error for E {
>     fn description(&self) -> &str {
>         ":)"
>     }
> }

What do we think?

Amanieu: The lint fires when you call it.  It doesn't fire when you implement it.  In the libs-api meeting, we decided that we're also happy to deprecate it when you implement it.

TC: Conceivably we could have a separate lint for calling a deprecated item and implementing a deprecated item, while using `#[deprecated]` for both.

Amanieu: It seems we did it the way it is now intentionally.

Josh: The reason may have been about wanting to warn when calling, but not to tell people they should immediately drop support.

TC: Ah, yes, obviously we can only lint here if there's a default body.

TC: I'm struggling to think of when, as a trait author, I've applied this to an item with a default body, and I wouldn't want this to lint on implementors.

Josh: +1.

Amanieu: +1.

TC: OK, we'll leave a comment inviting a stabilization PR, and we'll FCP that.

Josh: I'll leave that comment.

### "sanitizers: Stabilize AddressSanitizer and LeakSanitizer for the Tier 1 targets" rust#123617

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123617

TC: There's a proposed stabilization for sanitizers.  It includes a new attribute, currently called `#[no_sanitize]`.  I couldn't immediately find if we had previously discussed this.  In discussion, Eric Huss proposed we might want to consider `#[sanitize(off)]` or similar for parity with what we're doing for `#[coverage(off)]`.  We'd also need to think about whether there might be extensions to allow for e.g. turning off only one of many sanitizers.

TC: What do we think?

Josh: What you said makes sense.  In terms of turning off one sanitizer, I can think of a syntax for that along the lines of `#[sanitize(-onesanitizer)]`.  I'd suggest we say we're OK with `#[sanitize(off)]` and ask for use cases for the other, and say we might have ideas about syntax for that.

Amanieu: The `#[sanitize(off)]` seems extremely fragile.

TC: I think it's safe to say that we're more likely to spell this `#[sanitize(off)]` than what was in the stabilization.  We have questions about whether this is too much of a footgun and whether there's something better that we can do here, and if so, what thhat is.  And as mentioned before, we want to be on this stabilization FCP in any event unless they plan to remove the attribute from this stabilization entirely.

Amanieu: Looking through the thread, I found a compelling use case involving global variables, where address sanitizer adds things to it.

TC: Adding the attribute to statics seems to not have the footguns of adding it to function items.

Josh: Proposed text for the issue:

We discussed this in today's @rust-lang/lang meeting.

We were generally supportive of `sanitize(off)` -- and we felt we'd be more likely to call it that than `#[no_sanitize]` or similar -- but we shared the concern raised here about the safety of the case where something with `sanitize(off)` calls something *without* `sanitize(off)`. In C, the compiler doesn't give any help with this; it's the usual "make sure you do this correctly or it'll explode".

That seems like a footgun. And one you're more likely to hit in Rust than in C, because of the wide variety of helper methods like those on `Option` or `Result`.

We weren't sure what the right footgun-free way to handle turning off sanitizers would be, though.

Also, separately from that concern, *if* we want to support turning off individual sanitizers, the possible syntax `sanitize(-onesanitizername)` came up. But that does have the same safety problem as `sanitize(off)`.

In any case, please do include T-lang on any FCP that includes any attributes. (An FCP that just enables sanitizers in the compiler but doesn't add any attributes or other language surface area doesn't need any T-lang approval, of course.)

TC: Looks good, as revised.

(The meeting ended here.)

---

### "Lint on fn pointers comparisons in external macros" rust#134536

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134536

TC: This is a question of whether we want to extend a lint.  We had talked about this extension when considering the original lint, but we didn't answer that question.  See:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134536#issuecomment-2557487035

TC: What do we think?

### "Decide on behavior of `anonymous_lifetime_in_impl_trait`" rust#137575

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/137575

TC: We unnominated the original PR back in October 2023 as more analysis seemed to be needed. Since then, nikomatsakis and tmandry have posted substantive analysis that it seems we should discuss.

Unfortunately, the author seems to have lost interest in this stabilization.  Still, we'd be well-advised to finish our discussion so as to unblock anyone else from pursuing this.

### "[RFC] Add `#[export_ordinal(n)]` attribute" rfcs#3641

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3641

TC: This RFC would allow writing:

```rust
#[no_mangle]
#[export_ordinal(1)]
pub extern "C" fn hello() {
    println!("Hello, World!");
}
```

TC: There's a long-outstanding FCP.  Josh nominates this for us to collect checkboxes.  What do we think?

### "Remove unstable cfg `target(...)` compact feature" rust#130780

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130780

TC: Urgau suggests that we remove the `cfg_target_compact` unstable feature.  Its tracking issue is:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/96901

TC: What do we think?

### "Add `must-use-output` attribute" rfcs#3773

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3773

TC: We have `#[must_use]` that applies to function return types.  This RFC proposes a similar attribute that can be applied to output arguments on functions and have the same effect.  E.g.:

```rust
impl<T> Vec<T> {
    pub fn push(#[must_use_output] &mut self, item: T) { /* ... */ }
}
```

TC: What do we think?

### "Add checking for unnecessary delims in closure body" rust#136906

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136906

TC: This is about linting against:

```rust
pub fn main() {
    let _ = || (0 == 0);
}
```

What do we think?

### "Lang discussion: Item-level `const {}` blocks, and `const { assert!(...) }`" lang-team#251

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/251

TC: This issue was raised due to discussion in a T-libs-api call.  Josh gives the context:

> In discussion of [rust-lang/libs-team#325](https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/325) (a proposal for a compile-time assert macro), the idea came up to allow `const {}` blocks at item level, and then have people use `const { assert!(...) }`.
>
> @rust-lang/libs-api would like some guidance from @rust-lang/lang about whether lang is open to toplevel `const { ... }` blocks like this, which would influence whether we want to add a compile-time assert macro, as well as what we want to call it (e.g. `static_assert!` vs `const_assert!` vs some other name).
>
> Filing this issue to discuss in a lang meeting. This issue is _not_ seeking any hard commitment to add such a construct, just doing a temperature check.

CAD97 noted:

> To ensure that it's noted: if both item and expression `const` blocks are valid in the same position (i.e. in statement position), a rule to disambiguate would be needed (like for statement versus expression `if`-`else`). IMO it would be quite unfortunate for item-level `const` blocks to be evaluated pre-mono if that same `const` block but statement-level would be evaluated post-mono.
>
> Additionally: since `const { assert!(...) }` is post-mono (due to using the generic context), it's potentially desirable to push people towards using `const _: () = assert!(...);` (which is pre-mono) whenever possible (not capturing generics).

TC: What do we think?

### "Unsafe fields" rfcs#3458

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3458

TC: Nearly ten years ago, on 2014-10-09, pnkfelix proposed unsafe fields in RFC 381:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/381

On 2017-05-04, Niko commented:

> I am pretty strongly in favor of unsafe fields at this point. The only thing that holds me back is some desire to think a bit more about the "unsafe" model more generally.

Then, in 2023, Jacob Pratt refreshed this proposal with RFC 3458.  It proposes that:

> Fields may be declared `unsafe`. Unsafe fields may only be mutated (excluding interior mutability) or initialized in an unsafe context. Reading the value of an unsafe field may occur in either safe or unsafe contexts. An unsafe field may be relied upon as a safety invariant in other unsafe code.

E.g.:

```rust
struct Foo {
    safe_field: u32,
    /// Safety: Value must be an odd number.
    unsafe unsafe_field: u32,
}

// Unsafe field initialization requires an `unsafe` block.
// Safety: `unsafe_field` is odd.
let mut foo = unsafe {
    Foo {
        safe_field: 0,
        unsafe_field: 1,
    }
};
```

On 2024-05-21, Niko nominated this for us:

> I'd like to nominate this RFC for discussion. I've not read the details of the thread but I think the concept of unsafe fields is something that comes up continuously and some version of it is worth doing.

TC: What do we think?

### "Specify the behavior of `file!`" rust#134442

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134442

TC: kernelski made a good point about the tension between two uses of this feature.  I've nominated it for us to consider.

### "Add lint against (some) interior mutable consts" rust#132146

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132146

TC: Urgau nominates a new lint for us.  What do we think?

### "Closing issues relevant to T-lang on this repo" rfcs#3756

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3756

TC: We're being asked what we want to do, if anything, about issues (rather than PRs) in the RFCs repo.  Thoughts?

### "Emit a warning if a `match` is too complex" rust#122685

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122685

TC: Nadri nominates this for us and describes the situation:

> Dear T-lang, this PR adds a warning that cannot be silenced, triggered when a match takes a really long time to analyze (in the order of seconds). This is to help users figure out what's taking so long and fix it.
>
> We _could_ make the limit configurable or the warning `allow`able. I argue that's not necessary because [crater](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121979#issuecomment-2003089646) showed zero regressions with the current limit, and it's be pretty easy in general to split up a `match` into smaller `match`es to avoid blowup.
>
> We're still figuring out the exact limit, but does the team approve in principle?

(As an aside, awhile back someone [showed](https://niedzejkob.p4.team/rust-np/) how to [lower](https://github.com/NieDzejkob/rustc-sat) SAT to exhaustiveness checking with `match`.  Probably that would hit this limit.)

TC: What do we think?

### "Rename "unsized" coercion as "unsizing"" reference#1797

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1797

TC: We've called thing "unsized coercions" for a long time.  Do we want to keep this name or change it?

## On radar RFCs, PRs, and issues

### "Fallback `{float}` to `f32` when `f32: From<{float}>` and add `impl From<f16> for f32`" rust#139087

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139087

TC: Start here:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139087#issue-2957255130

What do we think?

### "[WIP] Forbid object lifetime changing pointer casts" rust#136776

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136776

TC: This PR acts to try to resolve a different concern around the stabilization of arbitrary self types and `derive(CoercePointee)`.  It produces distinctly non-zero regressions.  Let's review this situation.

What do we think?

### "Tracking issue for `cfg_match`" rust#115585

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115585

TC: There's been a `cfg_match!` macro in the works for awhile.  There's now a stabilization up.  tmandry suggests that we have a look, and we should probably go on the FCP.

### "Split elided_lifetime_in_paths into tied and untied" rust#120808

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120808

TC: There's a new proposal here for us to work through.

### "Make `missing_fragment_specifier` an unconditional error" rust#128425

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128425

TC: tgross35 wants us to make `missing_fragment_specifier` a hard error in all editions.  We started linting on deps in Rust 1.82.  The lint is set to deny.  What do we think?

### "Arbitrary self types v2: stabilize" rust#135881

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135881

TC: Adrian Taylor has put up a stabilization PR for arbitrary self types.  I've reviewed the tests and talked through some nits with Adrian.  It seems right to me.  What do we think?

### "Stabilize return type notation (RFC 3654)" rust#138424

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138424

TC: CE put up the long-awaited stabilization PR for RTN.  It looks right to me.  I've proposed FCP merge.  What do we think?

### "Add `#[loop_match]` for improved DFA codegen" rust#138780

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138780

TC: We accepted a project goal for having a better way to express state machines.  There's a PR for the experiment for this.  It adds two attributes that work with a restricted syntax pattern.  I.e., it doesn't add new syntax.  Are we OK with this experiment.  I'm the "champion".

### "`#[target_feature]` mismatch on unsafe trait fn vs its impl causes sneaky UB" rust#139368

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139368

TC: Someone found a sneaky unsoundness with `target_feature`.  What do we think?

### "Stabilize `fn_align`: `#[repr(align(N))]` on functions and `-Zmin-function-alignment`" rust#140261

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140261

TC: This is a stabilization for a way to align functions.

We should have a look at the point that Jules makess in favor of `#[align(..)]` rather than `#[align(repr(..))]` here:

https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-align-attribute/21004/27

Essentially, do we think of functions as more likely structs or more like statics, and if we were to have a way to align statics, would we say `#[align(repr(..))]` or `#[align(..)]`?

### "`core::marker::NoCell` in bounds (previously known an `Freeze`)" rfcs#3633

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3633

TC: We have up a proposed FCP.  What do we think?

### "Unsafe derives and attributes" rfcs#3715

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3715

TC: Josh proposed FCP for this RFC back in November 2024.  He's now nominated it.  What do we think?

### "[RFC] Allow packed types to transitively contain aligned types" rfcs#3718

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3718

TC: This came up in a lang/RfL call.  We might want to have a look for what we think here.

### "RFC: Add an attribute for raising the alignment of various items" rfcs#3806

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3806

TC: Based on our request, and to help us on,

- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140261

Jules Bertholet has filed this RFC proposing `#[align(..)]`.  What do we think?

### "lexer: Treat more floats with empty exponent as valid tokens" rust#131656

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131656

TC: There's a lexing change proposed here.  There's more context at:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131656#issuecomment-2698831039

What do we think?

### "An unsafe const fn being used to compute an array length or const generic is incorrectly described as being an "item"." rust#133441

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133441

TC: We're being asked for our take on what contexts should inherent an `unsafe { .. }`.  E.g., should this?:

```rust
const unsafe fn f() -> usize { 1 }

fn main() {
    unsafe {
        let _x = [0; f()];
    }
}
```

What about?:

```rust
const unsafe fn f() -> usize { 1 }

fn main() {
    _ = unsafe {
        const {
            f();
        }
    };
}
```

```rust
const unsafe fn f() -> usize { 1 }

fn main() {
    _ = unsafe {
        || {
            f();
        }
    };
}
```

```rust
const unsafe fn f() -> usize { 1 }

fn main() {
    unsafe {
        <[i32; f()]>::default();
    }
}
```

```rust
const unsafe fn f() -> usize { 1 }

fn g<const N: usize>() {}

fn main() {
    unsafe {
        g::<{f()}>();
    }
}
```

```rust
const unsafe fn f() -> usize { 1 }

struct S<const N: usize>;

fn main() {
    unsafe {
        let _x: S<{f()}>;
    }
}
```

TC: What do we think?

### "Stabilize `derive(CoercePointee)`" rust#133820

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133820

TC: Are we ready to stabilize `derive(CoercePointee)`?  Ding proposes that for us.

### "Partially stabilize LoongArch target features" rust#135015

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135015

TC: The proposal here is that we stabilize some target features for LoongArch.  What do we think?

### "aarch64-softfloat: forbid enabling the neon target feature" rust#135160

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135160

TC: RalfJ proposes:

> This fixes #134375 in a rather crude way, by making [the example](https://godbolt.org/z/r56xWo8nT) not build any more on aarch64-unknown-none-softfloat. That is a breaking change since the "neon" aarch64 target feature is stable, but this is justified as a soundness fix. Note that it's not "neon" which is problematic but "fp-armv8"; however, the two are tied together by rustc.
>
> More work on the LLVM side will be needed before we can let people use neon without impacting the ABI of float values (and, in particular, the ABI used by automatically inserted calls to libm functions, e.g. for int-to-float casts, which rustc has no control over).
>
> Nominating for @rust-lang/lang since it is a breaking change. As-is this PR doesn't have a warning cycle; the hope is that the aarch64-unknown-none-softfloat target is sufficiently niche that there's no huge fallout and we can easily revert if it causes trouble. A warning cycle could be added but would need some dedicated rather hacky check in the target_feature attribute handling logic.

TC: What do we think?

### "experiment with relaxing the orphan rule" rust#136979

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136979

TC: In the RfL/lang call on 2025-02-12, there was (again) a request for some way to relax the orphan rule, and they described their use case a bit.  We asked them to file an issue about this for a nomination, and there's been some discussion.

TC: What do we think?

### "Stabilize `repr128`" rust#138285

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138285

TC: This is about allowing:

```rust
#[repr(u128)]
enum Foo {
    One = 1,
    Two,
    Big = u128::MAX,
}
```

I've proposed FCP merge.  What do we think?

### "Stabilize the avx512 target features" rust#138940

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138940

TC: Amanieu nominates for us:

> This stabilizes the AVX512 target features which is a per-requisite for stabilizing the AVX-512 intrinsics tracked in #111137.

What do we think?

### "Tracking Issue for unicode and escape codes in literals" rust#116907

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116907

TC: nnethercote has implemented most of RFC 3349 ("Mixed UTF-8 literals") and, based on implementation experience, argues that the remainder of the RFC should not be implemented:

> I have a partial implementation of this RFC working locally (EDIT: now at #120286). The RFC proposes five changes to literal syntax. I think three of them are good, and two of them aren't necessary.

TC: What do we think?

### "Built-in attributes are treated differently vs prelude attributes, unstable built-in attributes can name-collide with stable macro, and built-in attributes can break back-compat" rust#134963

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134963

TC: jieyouxu makes an interesting observation of current behavior at which we should have a look.  What do we think?

### "RFC: No (opsem) Magic Boxes" rfcs#3712

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3712

TC: The idea here is to remove the language invariant that a `Box` must not alias other things (the library invariant would of course remain).

TC: What do we think?

### "Tracking Issue: Procedural Macro Diagnostics (RFC 1566)" rust#54140

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54140

TC: Spawned off from the original RFC 1566 for proc macros is the question of how to allow proc macros to emit diagnostics.

TC: The feeling on the 2025-01-07 libs-api call, particularly from dtolnay, is that it would be mistake to do this without some way to allow users to suppress these warnings with some specificity.  This then seems to call for some kind of namespacing solution, e.g. `allow(my_macro::*)`.  As I wrote:

> But more broadly, we've been thinking about a number of seemingly-related namespacing concerns, e.g. how to namespace attributes applied to fields for derive macros, the tooling namespace, etc. We may want to think holistically about this, or to encourage designs that fall within whatever direction we take here.

TC: This is nominated just to build context and see if we have any immediate thoughts.  Thoughts?

### "Tracking Issue for enum access in offset_of" rust#120141

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120141

TC: There's a proposed FCP merge for us:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120141#issuecomment-2161507356

TC: What do we think?

### "Strengthen the follow-set rule for macros" rust#131025

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131025

TC: Over in:

- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130635

@compiler-errors describes this general problem:

> The breakage specifically represents an inherent limitation to the "macro follow-set" formulation which is _supposed_ to make us more resilient against breakages due to extensions to the grammar like this.
>
> Given two macro matcher arms:
>
> * `($ty:ty) => ...`
> * `(($tt:tt)*) => ...`
>
> And given tokens like:
>
> * `&` `pin` `mut` [...more tokens may follow...]
>
> On nightly today, `&pin` gets parsed as a type. However, we run out of matchers but still have tokens left (the `mut` token is next), so we fall through to the next arm. Since it's written like `($tt:tt)*`, everything is allowed, and we match the second arm successfully...
>
> I think that's weird, because if this second arm were written like `$ty:ty mut`, that would be illegal, since `mut` is not in the follow-set of the `:ty` matcher. Thus, we can use `:tt` matchers to observe whether the compiler _actually_ parses things not in our grammar that should otherwise be protected against, which seems pretty gross.

And @Noratrieb proposes a general solution:

> I believe a solution to this would be the following new logic:
>
> * after the end of a macro matcher arm has been reached
> * and there are still input tokens remaining
> * and if the last part of the matcher is a metavar
> * ensure that the first remaining token is in the follow set of this metavar
> * if it is, move on to the next arm
> * if it is not, **emit an error**
>
> What this semantically does is strengthen the "commit to fully matching metavars or error" behavior such that it extends past the end. I don't know how many macros rely on this, but it seems like emitting an FCW (instead of error) on such macro invocations would find all these cases and ensure that the follow-set logic is actually robust past the end. But imo this shouldn't block this PR (which should probably just ship as-is) and can be done separately.

About this, NM noted:

> I don't think this proposal is sufficient but I am interested in pursuing a real fix to this for a future edition.
>
> Example:
>
```rust
macro_rules! test {
    (if $x:ty { }) => {};
    (if $x:expr { }) => {};
}
```
>
> This basically says to pick one arm if something is a type, another if it's an expression. Extending the type grammar to cover new cases could change which arm you go down to.
>
> I *think* the most general fix is to say: when you would start parsing a fragment, first skip ahead to find the extent of it (i.e., until you see an entry from the follow-set). Then parse it as the fragment. If the parsing fails or there are unconsumed tokens, report a hard error.
>
> I suspect it would break a lot in practice and we would need an opt-in.

TC: What do we think?


### "Warn about C-style octal literals" rust#131309

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131309

TC: The question is about code like:

```rust
fn is_executable(unix_mode: u32) -> bool {
    unix_mode & 0111 != 0
```

TC: Do we want to lint against that?

### "Decide on name for `Freeze`" rust#131401

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131401

TC: We still need to pick a name for `Freeze` (which may still be `Freeze`) so that we can proceed with:

- https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3633

Having heard no options particularly more appealing options than `Freeze`, I propose we go with that as the author of that RFC has suggested.

TC: What do we think?

### "RFC: Improved State Machine Codegen" rfcs#3720

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3720

TC: After a long discussion on Zulip leading to this, folkertdev proposes a way to express intraprocedural finite state machine transitions building on match syntax.  There's an draft implementation by bjorn3, and this results in some impressive speedups in `zlib-rs`.

TC: What's our vibe, and are there any objections to accepting this work from bjorn3 as a lang experiment?

### "Effective breakage to `jiff` due to `ambiguous_negative_literals`" rust#128287

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128287

TC: We have an allow-by-default lint against `ambiguous_negative_literals` like:

```rust
assert_eq!(-1.abs(), -1);
```

It's allow-by-default because we found use cases such as `jiff` (by BurntSushi) that have, in their API, operations whose result is invariant to the order of the negation and that rely on this syntax for the intended ergonomics.

Urgau has a proposal for us.  He'd like to lint by default, and have an...

```rust
#[diagnostic::irrelevant_negative_literal_precedence]
```

...attribute (of some name), using the diagnostic namespace, that could be applied to function definitions and that would suppress this lint on their callers.  Urgau would prefer this be opt-in rather than opt-out so as to bring awareness to this, even though many functions don't affect the sign bit and so will have this invariance.

I've asked BurntSushi for his views on this proposal with respect to `jiff`, to confirm this would address his use case.

TC: What do we think?

### "Simplify lightweight clones, including into closures and async blocks" rfcs#3680

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3680

TC: Josh nominates a new RFC for us.  What do we think?

### "Declarative `macro_rules!` attribute macros" rfcs#3697

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3697

TC: Josh proposes an RFC for us:

> Many crates provide attribute macros. Today, this requires defining proc macros, in a separate crate, typically with several additional dependencies adding substantial compilation time, and typically guarded by a feature that users need to remember to enable.
>
> However, many common cases of attribute macros don't require any more power than an ordinary `macro_rules!` macro. Supporting these common cases would allow many crates to avoid defining proc macros, reduce dependencies and compilation time, and provide these macros unconditionally without requiring the user to enable a feature.

E.g.:

```rust
macro_rules! main {
    attr() ($func:item) => { make_async_main!($func) };
    attr(threads = $threads:literal) ($func:item) => { make_async_main!($threads, $func) };
}

#[main]
async fn main() { ... }

#[main(threads = 42)]
async fn main() { ... }
```

TC: What do we think?

### "Declarative `macro_rules!` derive macros" rfcs#3698

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3698

TC: Josh proposes an RFC for us:

> Many crates support deriving their traits with `derive(Trait)`. Today, this requires defining proc macros, in a separate crate, typically with several additional dependencies adding substantial compilation time, and typically guarded by a feature that users need to remember to enable.
>
> However, many common cases of derives don't require any more power than an ordinary `macro_rules!` macro. Supporting these common cases would allow many crates to avoid defining proc macros, reduce dependencies and compilation time, and provide these macros unconditionally without requiring the user to enable a feature.

E.g.:

```rust
trait Answer { fn answer(&self) -> u32; }

#[macro_derive]
macro_rules! Answer {
    // Simplified for this example
    (struct $n:ident $_:tt) => {
        impl Answer for $n {
            fn answer(&self) -> u32 { 42 }
        }
    };
}

#[derive(Answer)]
struct Struct;

fn main() {
    let s = Struct;
    assert_eq!(42, s.answer());
}
```

TC: What do we think?

### "Macro fragment fields" rfcs#3714

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3714

TC: This RFC proposes to allow:

```rust
macro_rules! get_name {
    ($t:adt) => { println!("{}", stringify!(${t.name})); }
}

fn main() {
    let n1 = get_name!(struct S { field: u32 });
    let n2 = get_name!(enum E { V1, V2 = 42, V3(u8) });
    let n3 = get_name!(union U { u: u32, f: f32 });
    println!("{n3}{n1}{n2}"); // prints "USE"
}
```

That is, it lets MBE authors use the Rust parser to pull out certain elements.

TC: What do we think?

### "Add `homogeneous_try_blocks` RFC" rfcs#3721

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3721

TC: scottmcm proposes for us a tweak to the way that `?` works within `try { .. }` blocks.

TC: What's our vibe?

### "Elided lifetime changes in `rust_2018_idioms` lint is very noisy and results in dramatically degraded APIs for Bevy" rust#131725

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131725

TC: Long ago, we set a direction of wanting to move away from eliding lifetimes in paths, e.g.:

```rust
#![deny(elided_lifetimes_in_paths)]

struct S<'a>(&'a ());

fn f(x: &()) -> S {
    //          ~
    //~^ ERROR expected lifetime parameter
    S(x)
}
```

However, that lint is currently `allow-by-default`.  It was part of the `rust_2018_idioms` lint group (which is also `allow-by-default`).

We talked about changing this in Rust 2024, but it seems we didn't get around to it.

One of the maintainers of Bevy has now written in to ask us to never change this.

I'd probably highlight:

- The representativeness of the example being challenged.
  - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131725#issuecomment-2413272045
- Details about the lint and what would actually be flagged.
  - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91639#issuecomment-2413823502

TC: What do we think?

### "Coercing &mut to *const should not create a shared reference" rust#56604

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/56604

TC: It's currently UB to write:

```
fn main() {
    let x = &mut 0;
    let y: *const i32 = x;
    unsafe { *(y as *mut i32) = 1; }
    assert_eq!(*x, 1);
}
```

This is due to the fact that we implicitly first create a shared reference when coercing a `&mut` to a `*const`.  See:

TC: What do we think about this?

### "#[cold] on match arms" rust#120193

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120193

TC: Apparently our unstable `likely` and `unlikely` intrinsics don't work.  There's a proposal to do some work on fixing that and stabilizing a solution here.  The nominated question is whether we want to charter this as an experiment.

### "`is` operator for pattern-matching and binding" rfcs#3573

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3573

TC: Josh proposes for us that we should accept:

```rust
if an_option is Some(x) && x > 3 {
    println!("{x}");
}
```

And:

```rust
func(x is Some(y) && y > 3);
```

TC: The main topic discussed in the issue thread so far has been the degree to which Rust should have "two ways to do things".  Probably the more interesting issue is how the binding and drop scopes for this should work.

TC: In the 2024-02-21 meeting (with limited attendance), we discussed how we should prioritize stabilizing let chains, and tmandry suggested we may want to allow those to settle first.

TC: What do we think, as a gut check?

### "Unsafe fields" rfcs#3458

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3458

TC: Nearly ten years ago, on 2014-10-09, pnkfelix proposed unsafe fields in RFC 381:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/381

On 2017-05-04, Niko commented:

> I am pretty strongly in favor of unsafe fields at this point. The only thing that holds me back is some desire to think a bit more about the "unsafe" model more generally.

Then, in 2023, Jacob Pratt refreshed this proposal with RFC 3458.  It proposes that:

> Fields may be declared `unsafe`. Unsafe fields may only be mutated (excluding interior mutability) or initialized in an unsafe context. Reading the value of an unsafe field may occur in either safe or unsafe contexts. An unsafe field may be relied upon as a safety invariant in other unsafe code.

E.g.:

```rust
struct Foo {
    safe_field: u32,
    /// Safety: Value must be an odd number.
    unsafe unsafe_field: u32,
}

// Unsafe field initialization requires an `unsafe` block.
// Safety: `unsafe_field` is odd.
let mut foo = unsafe {
    Foo {
        safe_field: 0,
        unsafe_field: 1,
    }
};
```

On 2024-05-21, Niko nominated this for us:

> I'd like to nominate this RFC for discussion. I've not read the details of the thread but I think the concept of unsafe fields is something that comes up continuously and some version of it is worth doing.

TC: What do we think?

### "RFC: Allow symbol re-export in cdylib crate from linked staticlib" rfcs#3556

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3556

TC: This seems to be about making the following work:

```rust
// kind is optional if it's been specified elsewhere, e.g. via the `-l` flag to rustc
#[link(name="ext", kind="static")]
extern {
    #[no_mangle]
    pub fn foo();

    #[no_mangle]
    pub static bar: std::ffi::c_int;
}
```

There are apparently use cases for this.

What's interesting is that apparently it already does, but we issue a warning that is wrong:

```rust
warning: `#[no_mangle]` has no effect on a foreign function
  --> src/lib.rs:21:5
   |
21 |     #[no_mangle]
   |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: remove this attribute
22 |     pub fn foo_rfc3556_pub_with_no_mangle();
   |     ---------------------------------------- foreign function
   |
   = warning: this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out; it will become a hard error in a future release!
   = note: symbol names in extern blocks are not mangled
```

TC: One of the author's asks of us is that we don't make this into a hard error (e.g. with the new edition).

TC: What do we think?

### "Hierarchy of Sized traits" rfcs#3729

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3729

TC: We discussed this in our design meeting on 2024-11-13.  There's still a steady stream of good revisions and new ideas on the thread happening, so we should probably let this play out awhile longer.

### "Better errors with bad/missing identifiers in MBEs" rust#118939

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118939

TC: The idea here seems to be to improve some diagnostics around `macro_rules`, but this seems to be done by way of reserving the `macro_rules` token more widely, which is a breaking change.  Petrochenkov has objected to it on that basis, given that reserving `macro_rules` minimally has been the intention since we hope it will one day disappear in favor of `macro`.  What do we think?

### "Language vs. implementation threat models and implications for TypeId collision resistance" rust#129030

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129030

TC: We use SipHash-1-3-128 in Rust for hashing types to form TypeIds.  If these TypeIds collide in a single program, UB may result.

If SipHash-1-3-128 is a secure PRF, then the probability of such collisions happening accidentally in a program that contains an enormous 1M types is one in 2^-89.

But, if someone wanted to brute-force a collision -- that is, find two entirely random types that would have the same TypeId -- the work factor for that is no more than about 2^64 on average.

The question being nominated for lang is whether we consider that good enough for soundness, for now.

TC: What do we think?

### "RFC: inherent trait implementation" rfcs#2375

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2375

TC: We had a design meeting on 2023-09-12 about inherent trait impls.  In that meeting, I proposed a `use` syntax for this:

> In the discussion above, we had left two major items unresolved.
>
> - How do we make blanket trait impls inherent?
> - How can we allow only *some* items from the trait impl to be made inherent?
>   - This is especially tricky for associated functions and methods with a default implementation.
>
> (Part of the motivation for wanting to allow only some items to be made inherent is to prevent or to fix breakage caused when a trait later adds a new method with a default implementation whose name conflicts with the name of an existing inherent method.)
>
> Coming up with a syntax for these that combines well with the `#[inherent]` attribute could be challenging.
>
> One alternative that would make solving these problems straightforward is to add some syntax to the inherent `impl` block for the type.  Given the desugaring in the RFC, there is some conceptual appeal here.  (quaternic proposed this arrangement; TC is proposing the concrete syntax.)
>
> We can use `use` syntax to make this concise and intuitive.
>
> Here's an example:

```rust
trait Trait1<Tag, T> {
    fn method0(&self) -> u8 { 0 }
    fn method1(&self) -> u8 { 1 }
}
trait Trait2<Tag, T> {
    fn method2(&self) -> u8 { 2 }
    fn method3(&self) -> u8 { 3 }
    fn method4(&self) -> u8 { 4 }
}

struct Tag;

struct Foo<T>(T);
impl<T> Foo<T> {
    // All methods and associated items of Trait1 become inherent,
    // except for `method0`.  The inherent items are only visible
    // within this crate.
    pub(crate) use Trait1<Tag, T>::*;
    // Only `method2` and `method3` on Trait2 become inherent.
    pub use Trait2<Tag, T>::{method2, method3};

    fn method0(&self) -> u64 { u64::MAX }
}

impl<T> Trait1<Tag, T> for Foo<T> {}
impl<U: Trait1<Tag, T>, T> Trait2<Tag, T> for U {}
```

> This solves another problem that we discussed above.  How do we prevent breakage in downstream crates when a trait later adds a new method with a default implementation?  Since a downstream crate might have made an impl of this trait for some local type inherent and might have an inherent method with a conflicting name, this could be breaking.
>
> We already handle this correctly for `use` declarations with wildcards.  Any locally-defined items override an item that would otherwise be brought into scope with a wildcard import.  We can reuse that same behavior and intuition here.  When a wildcard is used to make all items in the trait inherent, any locally-defined inherent items in the `impl` prevent those items from the trait with the same name from being made inherent.
>
> Advantages:
>
> - It provides a syntax for adopting as inherent a blanket implementation of a trait for the type.
> - It provides a syntax for specifying which methods should become inherent, including methods with default implementations.
> - The wildcard import (`use Trait::*`) makes it very intuitive what exactly is happening and what exactly your API is promising.
> - The `use` syntax makes it natural for a locally-defined item to override an item from the wildcard import because that's exactly how other `use` declarations work.
> - `rust-analyzer` would probably support expanding a wildcard `use Trait::*` to an explicit `use Trait::{ .. }` just as it does for other `use` declarations, which would help people to avoid breakage.
> - We can support any visibility (e.g. `use`, `pub use`, `pub(crate) use`, etc.) for the items made inherent.
>
> Disadvantages:
>
> - There's some redundancy, especially when the items to make inherent are specifically named.

During the meeting, this emerged as the presumptive favorite, and we took on a TODO item to updated the RFC.

After follow-on discussion in Zulip, Niko agreed, and also raised a good question:

> Per the discussion on zulip, I have become convinced that it would be better to make this feature use the syntax `use`, like:
>
```rust
impl SomeType {
    pub use SomeTrait::*;  // re-export the methods for the trait implementation
}
```
>
> This syntax has a few advantages:
>
> * We can give preference to explicit method declared in the impl blocks over glob re-exports, eliminating one source of breakage (i.e., trait adds a method with a name that overlaps one of the inherent methods defined on `SomeType`)
> * Can make just specific methods (not all of them) inherent.
> * Easier to see the inherent method when scanning source.
> * You can re-export with different visibility levels (e.g., `pub(crate)`)
> * It would work best if we planned to permit `use SomeTrait::some_method;` as a way to import methods as standalone fns, but I wish we did that.
>
> However, in writing this, I realize an obvious disadvantage -- if the trait has more generics and things, it's not obvious how those should map. i.e., consider
>
```rust
struct MyType<T> {
}

impl<T> MyType<T> {
    pub use MyTrait::foo;
}

impl<T: Debug> MyTrait for MyType<T> {
    fn foo(&self) { }
}
```
>
> This would be weird -- is this an error, because the impl block says it's for all `T`? And what if it were `trait MyTRait<X>`?

TC: My sense is that we've just been awaiting someone digging in and updating the RFC here.

### "Raw Keywords" rfcs#3098

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3098

TC: We've at various times discussed that we had earlier decided that if we wanted to use a new keyword within an edition, we would write it as `k#keyword`, and for that reason, we prefer to not speculatively reserve keywords ahead of an edition (except, perhaps, when it's clear we plan to use it in the near future).

TC: Somewhat amusingly, however, we never in fact accepted that RFC.  Back in 2021, we accepted scottmcm's proposal to **cancel**:

> We discussed this RFC again in the lang team triage meeting today.
>
> For the short-term goal of the reservation for the edition, we'll be moving forward on #3101 instead. As such, we wanted to leave more time for conversations about this one, and maybe use crater results from 3101 to make design changes,
>
> @rfcbot cancel

Instead we accepted RFC 3101 that reserved `ident#foo`, `ident"foo"`, `ident'f'`, and `ident#123` starting in the 2023 edition.

Reading through the history, here's what I see:

- What do we want to do about Rust 2015 and Rust 2018?  It's a breaking change to add this there.  Is this OK?  Do we want to do a crater run on this?
- Would we have the stomach to actually do this?  It's one thing to *say* that if we wanted to use a new keyword within an edition, we'd write `k#keyword`, but it's another to actually do it in the face of certain criticism about that being e.g. unergonomic.  Would we follow through?

TC: What do we think?

### "RFC: Implementable trait aliases" rfcs#3437

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3437

TC: We discussed this in the lang planning meeting in June, and it looks like there have been updates since we last looked at this, so it's time for us to have another look since we seemed interested in this happening.

TC: What do we think?

### "Should Rust still ignore SIGPIPE by default?" rust#62569

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62569

TC: Prior to `main()` being executed, the Rust startup code makes a syscall to change the handling of `SIGPIPE`.  Many believe that this is wrong thing for a low-level language like Rust to do, because 1) it makes it impossible to recover what the original value was, and 2) means things like `seccomp` filters must be adjusted for this.

It's also just, in a practical sense, wrong for most CLI applications.

This seems to have been added back when Rust had green threads and then forgotten about.  But it's been an ongoing footgun.

Making a celebrity appearance, Rich Felker, the author of MUSL libc, notes:

> As long as Rust is changing signal dispositions inside init code in a way that the application cannot suppress or undo, it is _fundamentally unusable to implement standard unix utilities that run child processes_ or anything that needs to preserve the signal dispositions it was invoked with and pass them on to children. Changing inheritable process state behind the application's back is just unbelievably bad behavior and does not belong in a language runtime for a serious language...
>
> As an example, if you implement `find` in Rust, the `-exec` option will invoke its commands with `SIGPIPE` set to `SIG_IGN`, so that they will not properly terminate on broken pipe. But if you just made it set `SIGPIPE` to `SIG_DFL` before invoking the commands, now it would be broken in the case where the invoking user intentionally set `SIGPIPE` to `SIG_IGN` so that the commands would not die on broken pipe.

There was discussion in 2019 about fixing this over an edition, but nothing came of it.

Are we interested in fixing it over this one?

Strawman (horrible) proposal: We could stop making this pre-main syscall in Rust 2024 and have `cargo fix` insert this syscall at the start of every `main` function.

(In partial defense of the strawman, it gets us directly to the arguably best end result while having an automatic semantics-preserving edition migration and it avoids the concerns about lang/libs coupling that Mara raised.  The edition migration could add a comment above this inserted code telling people under what circumstances they should either keep or delete the added line.)

### "types team / lang team interaction" rust#116557

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116557

TC: nikomatsakis nominated this:

> We had some discussion about types/lang team interaction. We concluded a few things:
>
> * Pinging the team like @rust-lang/lang is not an effective way to get attention. Nomination is the only official way to get attention.
> * It's ok to nominate things in an "advisory" capacity but not block (e.g., landing a PR), particularly as most any action can ultimately be reversed. But right now, triagebot doesn't track closed issues, so that's a bit risky.
>
> Action items:
>
> * We should fix triagebot to track closed issues.

TC: What do we think?

### "Trait method impl restrictions" rfcs#3678

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3678

TC: This RFC is pending further work that's probably on me at this point.

### "Implement `PartialOrd` and `Ord` for `Discriminant`" rust#106418

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106418

TC: We discussed this last in the meeting on 2024-03-13.  scottmcm has now raised on concern on the issue and is planning to make a counter-proposal:

> I remain concerned about exposing this with no opt-out on an unrestricted generic type @rfcbot concern overly-broad
>
> I'm committing to making an alternative proposal because I shouldn't block without one. Please hold my feet to the fire if that's no up in a week.
>
> Basically, I have an idea for how we might be able to do this, from [#106418 (comment)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106418#issuecomment-1698887324)
>
> > 2. Expose the variant ordering privately, only accessible by the type owner/module.
> >
> > Solution 2. is obviously more desirable, but AFAIK Rust can't do that and there is no proposal to add a feature like that.

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106418#issuecomment-1994833151

### "Fallout from expansion of redundant import checking" rust#121708

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121708

TC: We discussed this in the meeting on 2024-03-13.  The feelings expressed included:

- We don't want to create a perverse incentive for people to expand existing lints rather than to create new ones where appropriate just because there's less process for expanding the meaning of an existing lint.
- It would be good if potentially-disruptive expansions of an existing lint either:
  - Had a machine-applicable fix.
  - Or had a new name.
- We don't want to require a new lint name for each expansion.
- We don't want to require a crater run for each change to a lint.
- There are two ways to prevent disruption worth exploring:
  - Prevent potentially-disruptive changes from hitting master.
  - Respond quickly to early indications of disruption once the changes hit master.
- Compiler maintainers have a sense of what might be disruptive and are cautious to avoid it.  It may be OK to have a policy that is not perfectly measurable.

TC: tmandry volunteered to draft a policy proposal.

### "What are the guarantees around which constants (and callees) in a function get monomorphized?" rust#122301

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122301

TC: The8472 asks whether this code, which compiles today, can be relied upon:

```rust
const fn panic<T>() {
    struct W<T>(T);
    impl<T> W<T> {
        const C: () = panic!();
    }
    W::<T>::C
}

struct Invoke<T, const N: usize>(T);

impl<T, const N: usize> Invoke<T, N> {
    const C: () = match N {
        0 => (),
        // Not called for `N == 0`, so not monomorphized.
        _ => panic::<T>(),
    };
}

fn main() {
    let _x = Invoke::<(), 0>::C;
}
```

The8472 notes that this is a useful property and that there are use cases for this in the compiler and the standard library, at least unless or until we adopt something like `const if`:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3582

RalfJ has pointed out to The8472 that the current behavior might not be intentional and notes:

> It's not opt-dependent, but it's also unclear how we want to resolve the opt-dependent issue. Some [proposals](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122814#issuecomment-2015090501) involve also walking all items "mentioned" in a const. That would be in direct conflict with your goal here I think. To be clear I think that's a weakness of those proposals. But if that turns out to be the only viable strategy then we'll have to decide what we want more: using `const` tricks to control what gets monomorphized, or not having optimization-dependent errors.
>
> One crucial part of this construction is that everything involved is generic. If somewhere in the two "branches" you end up calling a monomorphic function, then that may have its constants evaluated even if it is in the "dead" branch -- or it may not, it depends on which functions are deemed cross-crate-inlinable. That's basically what #122814 is about.

TC: The question to us is whether we want to guarantee this behavior.  What do we think?

### "Policy for lint expansions" rust#122759

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122759

TC: In the call on 2024-03-13, we discussed this issue raised by tmandry:

"Fallout from expansion of redundant import checking"

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121708

During the call, the thoughts expressed included:

- We don't want to create a perverse incentive for people to expand existing lints rather than to create new ones where appropriate just because there's less process for expanding the meaning of an existing lint.
- It would be good if potentially-disruptive expansions of an existing lint either:
  - Had a machine-applicable fix.
  - Or had a new name.
- We don't want to require a new lint name for each expansion.
- We don't want to require a crater run for each change to a lint.
- There are two ways to prevent disruption worth exploring:
  - Prevent potentially-disruptive changes from hitting master.
  - Respond quickly to early indications of disruption once the changes hit master.
- Compiler maintainers have a sense of what might be disruptive and are cautious to avoid it.  It may be OK to have a policy that is not perfectly measurable.

TC: tmandry volunteered to draft a policy proposal.  He's now written up this proposal in this issue.

TC: What do we think?

### "Decide on path forward for attributes on expressions" rust#127436

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127436

TC: We decided recently to unblock progress on attributes on expressions (RFC 16) by allowing attributes on blocks.  We have a proposed FCP to this effect.

After we did this, the question came up what we want to do about attributes in list contexts, e.g.:

```rust
call(#[foo] { block1 }, #[bar] { block2 })
```

...in particular, macro attributes.

Petrochenkov says:

> It needs to be decided how proc macros see the commas, or other separators in similar cases.
>
> Ideally proc macros should be able to turn 1 expression into multiple (including 0) expressions in this position, similarly to `cfg`s or macros in list contexts without separators. So it would be reasonable if the separators were included into both input and output tokens streams (there are probably other alternatives, but they do not fit into the token-based model as well). The "reparse context" bit from [#61733 (comment)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61733#issuecomment-509626449) is likely relevant to this case as well.

We filed a concern to figure this all out.

We discussed this on 2024-07-24 and came up with these options:

> Options ordered from least to most conservative (and then from most to least expressive):
>
> - Option A: Punt this case and don't support attributes in this position without parens (e.g. `call((#[attr] arg), (#[attr] arg2))`)
> - Option B (exactly one): Specify that, for now, if you use a macro attribute on an expression, that macro can only expand to a single expresion (not zero tokens, and no tokens following in the output).
> - Option C (zero or one): Specify that, for now, if you use a macro attribute on an expression, that macro can only expand to zero tokens or an expression with nothing following (extra tokens, including `,`, are an error for now)
> - Option D (zero or more): Specify that an attribute in this position can expand to tokens that may include a `,`, and that if they expand to zero tokens then we elide the comma.
> - Option E (flexible): include comma, let macro decide, etc
>    - We find it surprising that comma would be included.

In discussion, we seemed generally interested in allowing at least zero and 1.  We weren't sure about N, and we weren't sure about the handling of the comma in the input.

TC: What do we think?

### "RFC: Allow type inference for const or static" rfcs#3546

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3546

### "RFC: naming groups of configuration with `cfg_alias`" rfcs#3804

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3804

### "Decide what we want about `macro_metavar_expr`" rust#137581

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/137581

### "Original `pin!()` macro behavior cannot be expressed in Rust 2024" rust#138718

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138718

### "Allow while let chains on all editions" rust#140204

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140204

### "Lang proposal: Allow `#[cfg(...)]` within `asm!`" rust#140279

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140279

## Action item review

- [Action items list](https://hackmd.io/gstfhtXYTHa3Jv-P_2RK7A)

## Pending lang team project proposals

None.

## PRs on the lang-team repo

### "Frequently requested changes: add bypassing visibility" lang-team#323

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/pull/323

### "Add soqb`s design doc to variadics notes" lang-team#236

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/pull/236

### "Update auto traits design notes with recent discussion" lang-team#237

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/pull/237

### "Update hackmd link to a public link" lang-team#258

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/pull/258

### "Adding a link to "how to add a feature gate" in the experimenting how-to" lang-team#267

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/pull/267

### "text describing how other teams are enabled to make decisions." lang-team#290

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/pull/290

### "Fix link to agenda template" lang-team#315

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/pull/315

### "new decision process" lang-team#326

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/pull/326

## RFCs waiting to be merged

None.

## `S-waiting-on-team`

### "Split elided_lifetime_in_paths into tied and untied" rust#120808

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120808

### "Make `missing_fragment_specifier` an unconditional error" rust#128425

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128425

### "lexer: Treat more floats with empty exponent as valid tokens" rust#131656

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131656

### "aarch64-softfloat: forbid enabling the neon target feature" rust#135160

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135160

### "Guarantee behavior of transmuting Option::<T>::None subject to NPO" rust#137323

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137323

### "Lint on fn pointers comparisons in external macros" rust#134536

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134536

### "`repr(tag = ...)` for type aliases" rfcs#3659

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3659

### "Remove unstable cfg `target(...)` compact feature" rust#130780

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130780

### "Warn about C-style octal literals" rust#131309

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131309

### "#[cold] on match arms" rust#120193

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120193

### "Better errors with bad/missing identifiers in MBEs" rust#118939

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118939

### "Add lint against (some) interior mutable consts" rust#132146

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132146

### "Emit a warning if a `match` is too complex" rust#122685

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122685

### "Permissions" rfcs#3380

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3380

### "Rename `AsyncIterator` back to `Stream`, introduce an AFIT-based `AsyncIterator` trait" rust#119550

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119550

### "Implement RFC 3349, mixed utf8 literals" rust#120286

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120286

### "Tracking Issue for `bare_link_kind`" rust#132061

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132061

### "Add compiler support for namespaced crates" rust#140271

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140271

## Proposed FCPs

**Check your boxes!**

### "Fallback `{float}` to `f32` when `f32: From<{float}>` and add `impl From<f16> for f32`" rust#139087

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139087

### "Arbitrary self types v2: stabilize" rust#135881

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135881

### "Stabilize return type notation (RFC 3654)" rust#138424

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138424

### "`core::marker::NoCell` in bounds (previously known an `Freeze`)" rfcs#3633

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3633

### "Unsafe derives and attributes" rfcs#3715

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3715

### "Stabilize `derive(CoercePointee)`" rust#133820

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133820

### "aarch64-softfloat: forbid enabling the neon target feature" rust#135160

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135160

### "Remove `i128` and `u128` from `improper_ctypes_definitions`" rust#137306

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137306

### "sanitizers: Stabilize AddressSanitizer and LeakSanitizer for the Tier 1 targets" rust#123617

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123617

### "RFC: No (opsem) Magic Boxes" rfcs#3712

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3712

### "Warn about C-style octal literals" rust#131309

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131309

### "Decide on name for `Freeze`" rust#131401

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131401

### "Add checking for unnecessary delims in closure body" rust#136906

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136906

### "Declarative `macro_rules!` attribute macros" rfcs#3697

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3697

### "Declarative `macro_rules!` derive macros" rfcs#3698

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3698

### "[RFC] externally implementable functions" rfcs#3632

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3632

### "Specify the behavior of `file!`" rust#134442

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134442

### "Closing issues relevant to T-lang on this repo" rfcs#3756

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3756

### "Implement `PartialOrd` and `Ord` for `Discriminant`" rust#106418

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106418

### "Policy for lint expansions" rust#122759

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122759

### "Decide on path forward for attributes on expressions" rust#127436

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127436

### "RFC: Allow type inference for const or static" rfcs#3546

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3546

### "Stabilize associated type position impl Trait (ATPIT)" rust#120700

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120700

### "Allow while let chains on all editions" rust#140204

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140204

## Active FCPs

### "Make `missing_fragment_specifier` an unconditional error" rust#128425

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128425

### "Temporary lifetime extension through tuple struct and tuple variant constructors" rust#140593

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140593

### "Partially stabilize LoongArch target features" rust#135015

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135015

### "Stabilize the avx512 target features" rust#138940

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138940

## P-critical issues

None.
