Store all HIR owners in the same container
This replaces the previous storage in a BTreeMap for each of Item/ImplItem/TraitItem/ForeignItem.
This should allow for a more compact storage.
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83114
Display an extra note for trailing semicolon lint with trailing macro
Currently, we parse macros at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }`) as expressions, rather than
statements. This means that a macro invoked in this position
cannot expand to items or semicolon-terminated expressions.
In the future, we might want to start parsing these kinds of macros
as statements. This would make expansion more 'token-based'
(i.e. macro expansion behaves (almost) as if you just textually
replaced the macro invocation with its output). However,
this is a breaking change (see PR #78991), so it will require
further discussion.
Since the current behavior will not be changing any time soon,
we need to address the interaction with the
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` lint. Since we are parsing
the result of macro expansion as an expression, we will emit a lint
if there's a trailing semicolon in the macro output. However, this
results in a somewhat confusing message for users, since it visually
looks like there should be no problem with having a semicolon
at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }` => `fn foo() { produced_expr; }`)
To help reduce confusion, this commit adds a note explaining
that the macro is being interpreted as an expression. Additionally,
we suggest adding a semicolon after the macro *invocation* - this
will cause us to parse the macro call as a statement. We do *not*
use a structured suggestion for this, since the user may actually
want to remove the semicolon from the macro definition (allowing
the block to evaluate to the expression produced by the macro).
dont provide fwd declared params to cg defaults
Fixes#83938
```rust
#![feature(const_evaluatable_checked, const_generics, const_generics_defaults)]
#![allow(incomplete_features)]
pub struct Bar<const N: usize, const M: usize = { N + 1 }>;
pub fn foo<const N1: usize>() -> Bar<N1> { loop {} }
fn main() {}
```
This PR makes this code no longer ICE, it was ICE'ing previously because when building substs for `Bar<N1>` we would subst the anon ct: `ConstKind::Unevaluated({N + 1}, substs: [N, M])` with substs of `[N1]`. the anon const has forward declared params supplied though so we end up trying to substitute the provided `M` param which causes the ICE.
This PR doesn't handle the predicates of the const so
```rust
trait Foo<const N: usize> { const Assoc: usize; }
pub struct Bar<const N: usize = { <()>::Assoc }> where (): Foo<N>;
```
Resolves to `<() as Foo<N>>::Assoc` which can allow for using fwd declared params indirectly.
```rust
trait Foo<const N: usize> {}
struct Bar<const N: usize = { 2 + 3 }> where (): Foo<N>;
```
This code also ICEs under this PR because instantiating the default's predicates causes an ICE as predicates_of contains predicates with fwd declared params
PR was briefly discussed [in this zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/260443-project-const-generics/topic/evil.20preds.20in.20param.20env.20.2386580)
Remove detection of rustup and cargo in 'missing extern crate' diagnostics
Previously, this would change the test output when RUSTUP_HOME was set:
```
---- [ui] ui/issues/issue-49851/compiler-builtins-error.rs stdout ----
diff of stderr:
1 error[E0463]: can't find crate for `core`
2 |
3 = note: the `thumbv7em-none-eabihf` target may not be installed
+ = help: consider downloading the target with `rustup target add thumbv7em-none-eabihf`
4
5 error: aborting due to previous error
6
```
Originally, I fixed it by explicitly unsetting RUSTUP_HOME in
compiletest. Then I realized that almost no one has RUSTUP_HOME set,
since rustup doesn't set it itself. It does set RUST_RECURSION_COUNT
whenever it launches a proxy, though - use that instead.
r? ```@estebank``` cc ```@petrochenkov``` ```@kinnison```
Fix span when suggesting to add an associated type bound
Fixes#87261
Note that this fix is not perfect, it ~~will still give incorrect~~ won't give suggestions in some situations:
- If the associated type is defined on a supertrait of those contained in the opaque type, it will fallback to the previous behaviour, e.g. if `AssocTy` is defined on the trait `Foo`, `Bar` has `Foo` as supertrait and the opaque type is a `impl Bar + Baz`.
- If the the associated type is defined on a generic trait and the opaque type includes two versions of that generic trait, e.g. the opaque type is `impl Foo<A> + Foo<B>`
Currently, we parse macros at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }`) as expressions, rather than
statements. This means that a macro invoked in this position
cannot expand to items or semicolon-terminated expressions.
In the future, we might want to start parsing these kinds of macros
as statements. This would make expansion more 'token-based'
(i.e. macro expansion behaves (almost) as if you just textually
replaced the macro invocation with its output). However,
this is a breaking change (see PR #78991), so it will require
further discussion.
Since the current behavior will not be changing any time soon,
we need to address the interaction with the
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` lint. Since we are parsing
the result of macro expansion as an expression, we will emit a lint
if there's a trailing semicolon in the macro output. However, this
results in a somewhat confusing message for users, since it visually
looks like there should be no problem with having a semicolon
at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }` => `fn foo() { produced_expr; }`)
To help reduce confusion, this commit adds a note explaining
that the macro is being interpreted as an expression. Additionally,
we suggest adding a semicolon after the macro *invocation* - this
will cause us to parse the macro call as a statement. We do *not*
use a structured suggestion for this, since the user may actually
want to remove the semicolon from the macro definition (allowing
the block to evaluate to the expression produced by the macro).
Warn on inert attributes used on bang macro invocation
These attributes are currently discarded.
This may change in the future (see #63221), but for now,
placing inert attributes on a macro invocation does nothing,
so we should warn users about it.
Technically, it's possible for there to be attribute macro
on the same macro invocation (or at a higher scope), which
inspects the inert attribute. For example:
```rust
#[look_for_inline_attr]
#[inline]
my_macro!()
#[look_for_nested_inline]
mod foo { #[inline] my_macro!() }
```
However, this would be a very strange thing to do.
Anyone running into this can manually suppress the warning.
Refactor vtable format for upcoming trait_upcasting feature.
This modifies vtable format:
1. reordering occurrence order of methods coming from different traits
2. include `VPtr`s for supertraits where this vtable cannot be directly reused during trait upcasting.
Also, during codegen, the vtables corresponding to these newly included `VPtr` will be requested and generated.
For the cases where this vtable can directly used, now the super trait vtable has exactly the same content to some prefix of this one.
r? `@bjorn3`
cc `@RalfJung`
cc `@rust-lang/wg-traits`
Previously, this would change the test output when RUSTUP_HOME was set:
```
---- [ui] ui/issues/issue-49851/compiler-builtins-error.rs stdout ----
diff of stderr:
1 error[E0463]: can't find crate for `core`
2 |
3 = note: the `thumbv7em-none-eabihf` target may not be installed
+ = help: consider downloading the target with `rustup target add thumbv7em-none-eabihf`
4
5 error: aborting due to previous error
6
```
Originally, I fixed it by explicitly unsetting RUSTUP_HOME in
compiletest. Then I realized that almost no one has RUSTUP_HOME set,
since rustup doesn't set it itself; although it does set RUST_RECURSION_COUNT
whenever it launches a proxy. Then it was pointed out that this runtime
check doesn't really make sense and it's fine to make it unconditional.
fix: clarify suggestion that `&T` must refer to `T: Sync` for `&T: Send`
### Description
- [x] fix#86507
- [x] add UI test for relevant code from issue
- [x] change `rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/error_reporting/suggestions.rs` to include a more clear suggestion when `&T` fails to satisfy `Send` bounds due to the fact that `T` fails to implement `Sync`
- [x] update UI test in Clippy: `src/tools/tests/ui/future_not_send.stderr`
Make mir borrowck's use of opaque types independent of the typeck query's result
fixes#87218fixes#86465
we used to use the typeck results only to generate an obligation for the mir borrowck type to be equal to the typeck result.
When i removed the `fixup_opaque_types` function in #87200, I exposed a bug that showed that mir borrowck can't doesn't get enough information from typeck in order to build the correct lifetime mapping from opaque type usage to the actual concrete type. We therefor now fully compute the information within mir borrowck (we already did that, but we only used it to verify the typeck result) and stop using the typeck information.
We will likely be able to remove most opaque type information from the borrowck results in the future and just have all current callers use the mir borrowck result instead.
r? `@spastorino`
add test for issue 86507
add stderr for issue 86507
update issue-86507 UI test
add comment for the expected error in UI test file
add proper 'refers to <ref_type>' in suggestion
update diagnostic phrasing; update test to match new phrasing; re-organize logic for checking T: Sync
evaluate additional obligation to figure out if T is Sync
run './x.py test tidy --bless'
incorporate changes from review; reorganize logic for readability
Revert PR 81473 to resolve (on mainline) issues 81626 and 81658.
This is a nightly-targetted variant of PR #83171
The intent is to just address issue #81658 on all release channels, rather that keep repeatedly reverting PR #83171 on beta.
However, our intent is *also* to reland PR #83171 after we have addressed issue #81658 , most likely by coupling the re-landing of PR #83171 with an enhancement like PR #83004
Support HIR wf checking for function signatures
During function type-checking, we normalize any associated types in
the function signature (argument types + return type), and then
create WF obligations for each of the normalized types. The HIR wf code
does not currently support this case, so any errors that we get have
imprecise spans.
This commit extends `ObligationCauseCode::WellFormed` to support
recording a function parameter, allowing us to get the corresponding
HIR type if an error occurs. Function typechecking is modified to
pass this information during signature normalization and WF checking.
The resulting code is fairly verbose, due to the fact that we can
no longer normalize the entire signature with a single function call.
As part of the refactoring, we now perform HIR-based WF checking
for several other 'typed items' (statics, consts, and inherent impls).
As a result, WF and projection errors in a function signature now
have a precise span, which points directly at the responsible type.
If a function signature is constructed via a macro, this will allow
the error message to point at the code 'most responsible' for the error
(e.g. a user-supplied macro argument).
Fix implicit Sized relaxation when attempting to relax other, unsupported trait
Fixes#87199.
Do note that this bug fix causes code like the `ref_arg::<[i32]>(&[5]);` line in the test case in combination with an affected function to no longer compile.
When pretty printing, name placeholders as bound regions
Split from #85499
When we see a placeholder that we are going to print, treat it as a bound var (and add it to a `for<...>`
Rename force-warns to force-warn
The renames the `--force-warns` option to `--force-warn`. This mirrors other lint options like `--warn` and `--deny` which are in the singular.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
cc `@ehuss` - this option is being used by Cargo. How do we make sure the transition to using the new name is as smooth as possible?
Get back the more precise suggestion spans of old regionck
I noticed that when you turn on nll, the structured suggestion replaces a snippet instead of appending a snippet. It seems clearer to the user to only highlight the newly added characters instead of the entire `impl Trait` (and old regionck already does it this way).
r? ``@estebank``
During function type-checking, we normalize any associated types in
the function signature (argument types + return type), and then
create WF obligations for each of the normalized types. The HIR wf code
does not currently support this case, so any errors that we get have
imprecise spans.
This commit extends `ObligationCauseCode::WellFormed` to support
recording a function parameter, allowing us to get the corresponding
HIR type if an error occurs. Function typechecking is modified to
pass this information during signature normalization and WF checking.
The resulting code is fairly verbose, due to the fact that we can
no longer normalize the entire signature with a single function call.
As part of the refactoring, we now perform HIR-based WF checking
for several other 'typed items' (statics, consts, and inherent impls).
As a result, WF and projection errors in a function signature now
have a precise span, which points directly at the responsible type.
If a function signature is constructed via a macro, this will allow
the error message to point at the code 'most responsible' for the error
(e.g. a user-supplied macro argument).
Better diagnostics with mismatched types due to implicit static lifetime
Fixes#78113
I think this is my first diagnostics PR...definitely happy to hear thoughts on the direction/implementation here.
I was originally just trying to solve the error above, where the lifetime on a GAT was causing a cryptic "mismatched types" error. But as I was writing this, I realized that this (unintentionally) also applied to a different case: `wf-in-foreign-fn-decls-issue-80468.rs`. I'm not sure if this diagnostic should get a new error code, or even reuse an existing one. And, there might be some ways to make this even more generalized. Also, the error is a bit more lengthy and verbose than probably needed. So thoughts there are welcome too.
This PR essentially ended up adding a new nice region error pass that triggers if a type doesn't match the self type of an impl which is selected because of a predicate because of an implicit static bound on that self type.
r? `@estebank`
