Mention formatting macros when encountering `ArgumentV1` method in const
Also open to just closing this if it's overkill. There are a lot of other distracting error messages around, so maybe it's not worth fixing just this one.
Fixes#93665
Don't omit comma when suggesting wildcard arm after macro expr
* Also adds `Span::eq_ctxt` to consolidate the various usages of `span.ctxt() == other.ctxt()`
* Also fixes an unhygenic usage of spans which caused the suggestion to render weirdly when we had one arm match in a macro
* Also always suggests a comma (i.e. even after a block) if we're rendering a wildcard arm in a single-line match (looks prettier 🌹)
Fixes#94866
Include ForeignItem when visiting types for WF check
Addresses Issue 95665 by including `hir::Node::ForeignItem` as a valid
type to visit in `diagnostic_hir_wf_check`.
Fixes#95665
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #97803 (Impl Termination for Infallible and then make the Result impls of Termination more generic)
- #97828 (Allow configuring where artifacts are downloaded from)
- #98150 (Emscripten target: replace -g4 with -g, and -g3 with --profiling-funcs)
- #98195 (Fix rustdoc json primitive handling)
- #98205 (Remove a possible unnecessary assignment)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Impl Termination for Infallible and then make the Result impls of Termination more generic
This allows things like `Result<ExitCode, E>` to 'just work'
Subtype FRU fields first in `type_changing_struct_update`
So this fixes a subtle bug that `type_changing_struct_update` introduced, where it'll no longer coerce the base expr correctly. I actually think this code is easier to understand now, too.
r? `@lcnr` since you reviewed the last one
Hide irrelevant lines in suggestions to allow for suggestions that are far from each other to be shown
This is an attempt to fix suggestions one part of which is 6 lines or more far from the first. I've noticed "the problem" (of not showing some parts of the suggestion) here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97759#discussion_r889689230.
I'm not sure about the implementation (this big closure is just bad and makes already complicated code even more so), but I want to at least discuss the result.
Here is an example of how this changes the output:
Before:
```text
help: consider enclosing expression in a block
|
3 ~ 'l: { match () { () => break 'l,
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
...
```
After:
```text
help: consider enclosing expression in a block
|
3 ~ 'l: { match () { () => break 'l,
4 |
...
31|
32~ } };
|
```
r? `@estebank`
`@rustbot` label +A-diagnostics +A-suggestion-diagnostics
Support lint expectations for `--force-warn` lints (RFC 2383)
Rustc has a `--force-warn` flag, which overrides lint level attributes and forces the diagnostics to always be warn. This means, that for lint expectations, the diagnostic can't be suppressed as usual. This also means that the expectation would not be fulfilled, even if a lint had been triggered in the expected scope.
This PR now also tracks the expectation ID in the `ForceWarn` level. I've also made some minor adjustments, to possibly catch more bugs and make the whole implementation more robust.
This will probably conflict with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97718. That PR should ideally be reviewed and merged first. The conflict itself will be trivial to fix.
---
r? `@wesleywiser`
cc: `@flip1995` since you've helped with the initial review and also discussed this topic with me. 🙃
Follow-up of: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87835
Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85549
Yeah, and that's it.
Add regression test for #93775Closes#93775, also closes#93022 as it should have the same root cause
r? ```@compiler-errors```
Signed-off-by: Yuki Okushi <jtitor@2k36.org>
Refactor path segment parameter error
This PR attempts to rewrite the error handling for an unexpected parenthesised type parameters to:
- Use provided data instead of re-parsing the whole span
- Add a multipart suggestion to reflect on the changes with an underline
- Remove the unnecessary "if" nesting
Fix suggestions for `&a: T` parameters
I've accidentally discovered that we have broken suggestions for `&a: T` parameters:
```rust
fn f(&mut bar: u32) {}
fn main() {
let _ = |&mut a| ();
}
```
```text
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> ./t.rs:1:6
|
1 | fn f(&mut bar: u32) {}
| ^^^^^^^^-----
| | |
| | expected due to this
| expected `u32`, found `&mut _`
| help: did you mean `bar`: `&u32`
|
= note: expected type `u32`
found mutable reference `&mut _`
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> ./t.rs:4:23
|
4 | let _: fn(u32) = |&mut a| ();
| ^^^^^--
| | |
| | expected due to this
| expected `u32`, found `&mut _`
| help: did you mean `a`: `&u32`
|
= note: expected type `u32`
found mutable reference `&mut _`
```
It's hard to see, but
1. The help span is overlapping with "expected" spans
2. It suggests `fn f( &u32) {}` (no `mut` and lost parameter name) and `|&u32 ()` (no closing `|` and lost parameter name)
I've tried to fix this.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
[RFC 2011] Minimal initial implementation
Tracking issue: #44838
Third step of #96496
Implementation has ~290 LOC with the bare minimum to be in a functional state. Currently only searches for binary operations to mimic what `assert_eq!` and `assert_ne!` already do.
r? `@oli-obk`
Remove `rustc_deprecated` diagnostics
Follow-up on #95960. The diagnostics will remain until the next bootstrap, at which point people will have had six weeks to adjust.
``@rustbot`` label +A-diagnostics
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #97822 (Filter out intrinsics if we have other import candidates to suggest)
- #98026 (Move some tests to more reasonable directories)
- #98067 (compiler: remove unused deps)
- #98078 (Use unchecked mul to compute slice sizes)
- #98083 (Rename rustc_serialize::opaque::Encoder as MemEncoder.)
- #98087 (Suggest adding a `#[macro_export]` to a private macro)
- #98113 (Fix misspelling of "constraint" as "contraint")
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Filter out intrinsics if we have other import candidates to suggest
Fixes#97618
Also open to just sorting these candidates to be last. Pretty easy to modify the code to do that, too.
Improve parsing errors and suggestions for bad `if` statements
1. Parses `if {}` as `if <err> {}` (block-like conditions that are missing a "then" block), and `if true && {}` as `if true && <err> {}` (unfinished binary operation), which is a more faithful recovery and leads to better typeck errors later on.
1. Points out the span of the condition if we don't see a "then" block after it, to help the user understand what is being parsed as a condition (and by elimination, what isn't).
1. Allow `if cond token else { }` to be fixed properly to `if cond { token } else { }`.
1. Fudge with the error messages a bit. This is somewhat arbitrary and I can revert my rewordings if they're useless.
----
Also this PR addresses a strange parsing regression (1.20 -> 1.21) where we chose to reject this piece of code somewhat arbitrarily, even though we should parse it fine:
```rust
fn main() {
if { if true { return } else { return }; } {}
}
```
For context, all of these other expressions parse correctly:
```rust
fn main() {
if { if true { return } else { return } } {}
if { return; } {}
if { return } {}
if { return if true { } else { }; } {}
}
```
The parser used a heuristic to determine if the "the parsed `if` condition makes sense as a condition" that did like a one-expr-deep reachability analysis. This should not be handled by the parser though.
