Suggest `let` or `==` on typo'd let-chain
When encountering a bare assignment in a let-chain, suggest turning the
assignment into a `let` expression or an equality check.
```
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/bad-if-let-suggestion.rs:5:8
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i = 2 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
help: you might have meant to continue the let-chain
|
LL | if let x = 1 && let i = 2 {}
| +++
help: you might have meant to compare for equality
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i == 2 {}
| +
```
When encountering a bare assignment in a let-chain, suggest turning the
assignment into a `let` expression or an equality check.
```
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/bad-if-let-suggestion.rs:5:8
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i = 2 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
help: you might have meant to continue the let-chain
|
LL | if let x = 1 && let i = 2 {}
| +++
help: you might have meant to compare for equality
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i == 2 {}
| +
```
effects: Run `enforce_context_effects` for all method calls
So that we also perform checks when overloaded `PartialEq`s are called.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Rewrite exhaustiveness in one pass
This is at least my 4th attempt at this in as many years x) Previous attempts were all too complicated or too slow. But we're finally here!
The previous version of the exhaustiveness algorithm computed reachability for each arm then exhaustiveness of the whole match. Since each of these steps does roughly the same things, this rewrites the algorithm to do them all in one go. I also think this makes things much simpler.
I also rewrote the documentation of the algorithm in depth. Hopefully it's up-to-date and easier to follow now. Plz comment if anything's unclear.
r? `@oli-obk` I think you're one of the rare other people to understand the exhaustiveness algorithm?
cc `@varkor` I know you're not active anymore, but if you feel like having a look you might enjoy this :D
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79307
Fixes error count display is different when there's only one error left
Supersedes #114759
### What did I do?
I did the small change in `rustc_errors` by hand. Then I did the other changes in `/compiler` by hand, those were just find replace on `*.rs` in the workspace. The changes in run-make are find replace for `run-make` in the workspace.
All other changes are blessed using `x test TEST --bless`. I blessed the tests that were blessed in #114759.
### how to review this nightmare
ping bors with an `r+`. You should check that my logic is sound and maybe quickly scroll through the diff, but fully verifying it seems fairly hard to impossible. I did my best to do this correctly.
Thank you `@adrianEffe` for bringing this up and your initial implementation.
cc `@flip1995,` you said you want to do a subtree sync asap
cc `@RalfJung` maybe you want to do a quick subtree sync afterwards as well for Miri
r? `@WaffleLapkin`
Deny more `~const` trait bounds
thereby fixing a family of ICEs (delayed bugs) for `feature(const_trait_impl, effects)` code.
As discussed
r? `@fee1-dead`
patterns: reject raw pointers that are not just integers
Matching against `0 as *const i32` is fine, matching against `&42 as *const i32` is not.
This extends the existing check against function pointers and wide pointers: we now uniformly reject all these pointer types during valtree construction, and then later lint because of that. See [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116930#issuecomment-1784654073) for some more explanation and context.
Also fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116929.
Cc `@oli-obk` `@lcnr`
Cleanup `rustc_mir_build/../check_match.rs`
The file had become pretty unwieldy, with a fair amount of duplication. As a bonus, I discovered that we weren't running some pattern checks in if-let chains.
I recommend looking commit-by-commit. The last commit is a whim, I think it makes more sense that way but I don't hold this opinion strongly.
Allows `#[diagnostic::on_unimplemented]` attributes to have multiple
notes
This commit extends the `#[diagnostic::on_unimplemented]` (and `#[rustc_on_unimplemented]`) attributes to allow multiple `note` options. This enables emitting multiple notes for custom error messages. For now I've opted to not change any of the existing usages of `#[rustc_on_unimplemented]` and just updated the relevant compile tests.
r? `@compiler-errors`
I'm happy to adjust any of the existing changed location to emit the old error message if that's desired.
Allow partially moved values in match
This PR attempts to unify the behaviour between `let _ = PLACE`, `let _: TY = PLACE;` and `match PLACE { _ => {} }`.
The logical conclusion is that the `match` version should not check for uninitialised places nor check that borrows are still live.
The `match PLACE {}` case is handled by keeping a `FakeRead` in the unreachable fallback case to verify that `PLACE` has a legal value.
Schematically, `match PLACE { arms }` in surface rust becomes in MIR:
```rust
PlaceMention(PLACE)
match PLACE {
// Decision tree for the explicit arms
arms,
// An extra fallback arm
_ => {
FakeRead(ForMatchedPlace, PLACE);
unreachable
}
}
```
`match *borrow { _ => {} }` continues to check that `*borrow` is live, but does not read the value.
`match *borrow {}` both checks that `*borrow` is live, and fake-reads the value.
Continuation of ~https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102256~ ~https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104844~
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99180https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53114
notes
This commit extends the `#[diagnostic::on_unimplemented]` (and
`#[rustc_on_unimplemented]`) attributes to allow multiple `note`
options. This enables emitting multiple notes for custom error messages.
For now I've opted to not change any of the existing usages of
`#[rustc_on_unimplemented]` and just updated the relevant compile tests.
Mention the syntax for `use` on `mod foo;` if `foo` doesn't exist
Newcomers might get confused that `mod` is the only way of defining scopes, and that it can be used as if it were `use`.
Fix#69492.
Lint `non_exhaustive_omitted_patterns` by columns
This is a rework of the `non_exhaustive_omitted_patterns` lint to make it more consistent. The intent of the lint is to help consumers of `non_exhaustive` enums ensure they stay up-to-date with all upstream variants. This rewrite fixes two cases we didn't handle well before:
First, because of details of exhaustiveness checking, the following wouldn't lint `Enum::C` as missing:
```rust
match Some(x) {
Some(Enum::A) => {}
Some(Enum::B) => {}
_ => {}
}
```
Second, because of the fundamental workings of exhaustiveness checking, the following would treat the `true` and `false` cases separately and thus lint about missing variants:
```rust
match (true, x) {
(true, Enum::A) => {}
(true, Enum::B) => {}
(false, Enum::C) => {}
_ => {}
}
```
Moreover, it would correctly not lint in the case where the pair is flipped, because of asymmetry in how exhaustiveness checking proceeds.
A drawback is that it no longer makes sense to set the lint level per-arm. This will silently break the lint for current users of it (but it's behind a feature gate so that's ok).
The new approach is now independent of the exhaustiveness algorithm; it's a separate pass that looks at patterns column by column. This is another of the motivations for this: I'm glad to move it out of the algorithm, it was akward there.
This PR is almost identical to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111651. cc `@eholk` who reviewed it at the time. Compared to then, I'm more confident this is the right approach.
