Run rustfmt on files that need it.
Somehow these files aren't properly formatted. By default `x fmt` and `x tidy` only check files that have changed against master, so if an ill-formatted file somehow slips in it can stay that way as long as it doesn't get modified(?)
I found these when I ran `x fmt` explicitly on every `.rs` file in the repo, while working on
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/750.
Somehow these files aren't properly formatted. By default `x fmt` and `x
tidy` only check files that have changed against master, so if an
ill-formatted file somehow slips in it can stay that way as long as it
doesn't get modified(?)
I found these when I ran `x fmt` explicitly on every `.rs` file in the
repo, while working on
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/750.
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125263 (rust-lld: fallback to rustc's sysroot if there's no path to the linker in the target sysroot)
- #125345 (rustc_codegen_llvm: add support for writing summary bitcode)
- #125362 (Actually use TAIT instead of emulating it)
- #125412 (Don't suggest adding the unexpected cfgs to the build-script it-self)
- #125445 (Migrate `run-make/rustdoc-with-short-out-dir-option` to `rmake.rs`)
- #125452 (Cleanup check-cfg handling in core and std)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Don't suggest adding the unexpected cfgs to the build-script it-self
This PR adds a check to avoid suggesting to add the unexpected cfgs inside the build-script when building the build-script it-self, as it won't have any effect, since build-scripts applies to their descended target.
Fixes#125368
Remove more `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing`
Because explicit importing of macros via use items is nicer (more standard and readable) than implicit importing via `#[macro_use]`. Continuing the work from #124511 and #124914.
r? `@jackh726`
Use correct param-env in `MissingCopyImplementations`
We shouldn't assume the param-env is empty for this lint, since although we check the struct has no parameters, there still may be trivial where-clauses.
fixes#125394
Cleanup: Fix up some diagnostics
Several diagnostics contained their error code inside their primary message which is no bueno.
This PR moves them out of the message and turns them into structured error codes.
Also fixes another occurrence of `->` after a selector in a Fluent message which is not correct. I've fixed two other instances of this issue in #104345 (2022) but didn't update all instances as I've noted here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104345#issuecomment-1312705977 (“the future is now!”).
Expand `for_loops_over_fallibles` lint to lint on fallibles behind references.
Extends the scope of the (warn-by-default) lint `for_loops_over_fallibles` from just `for _ in x` where `x: Option<_>/Result<_, _>` to also cover `x: &(mut) Option<_>/Result<_>`
```rs
fn main() {
// Current lints
for _ in Some(42) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// New lints
for _ in &Some(42) {}
for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
// Should not lint
for _ in Some(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter() {}
for _ in Some(42).iter_mut() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).into_iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter() {}
for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42).iter_mut() {}
}
```
<details><summary><code>cargo build</code> diff</summary>
```diff
diff --git a/old.out b/new.out
index 84215aa..ca195a7 100644
--- a/old.out
+++ b/new.out
`@@` -1,33 +1,93 `@@`
warning: for loop over an `Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:3:14
|
3 | for _ in Some(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(for_loops_over_fallibles)]` on by default
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
3 | while let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
3 | if let Some(_) = Some(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
warning: for loop over a `Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
--> src/main.rs:4:14
|
4 | for _ in Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
|
4 | while let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
|
4 | if let Ok(_) = Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
| ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
-warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 2 warnings
- Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.04s
+warning: for loop over a `&Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:7:14
+ |
+7 | for _ in &Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+7 | while let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+7 | if let Some(_) = &Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Option`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:8:14
+ |
+8 | for _ in &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+8 | while let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+8 | if let Some(_) = &mut Some(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:9:14
+ |
+9 | for _ in &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+9 | while let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+9 | if let Ok(_) = &Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: for loop over a `&mut Result`. This is more readably written as an `if let` statement
+ --> src/main.rs:10:14
+ |
+10 | for _ in &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+ |
+help: to check pattern in a loop use `while let`
+ |
+10 | while let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+help: consider using `if let` to clear intent
+ |
+10 | if let Ok(_) = &mut Ok::<_, i32>(42) {}
+ | ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
+
+warning: `for-loops-over-fallibles` (bin "for-loops-over-fallibles") generated 6 warnings
+ Finished `dev` profile [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.02s
```
</details>
-----
Question:
* ~~Currently, the article `an` is used for `&Option`, and `&mut Option` in the lint diagnostic, since that's what `Option` uses. Is this okay or should it be changed? (likewise, `a` is used for `&Result` and `&mut Result`)~~ The article `a` is used for `&Option`, `&mut Option`, `&Result`, `&mut Result` and (as before) `Result`. Only `Option` uses `an` (as before).
`@rustbot` label +A-lint
* instead simply set the primary message inside the lint decorator functions
* it used to be this way before [#]101986 which introduced `msg` to prevent
good path delayed bugs (which no longer exist) from firing under certain
circumstances when lints were suppressed / silenced
* this is no longer necessary for various reasons I presume
* it shaves off complexity and makes further changes easier to implement
Translation of the lint message happens when the actual diagnostic is
created, not when the lint is buffered. Generating the message from
BuiltinLintDiag ensures that all required data to construct the message
is preserved in the LintBuffer, eventually allowing the messages to be
moved to fluent.
Remove the `msg` field from BufferedEarlyLint, it is either generated
from the data in the BuiltinLintDiag or stored inside
BuiltinLintDiag::Normal.
Update `unexpected_cfgs` lint for Cargo new `check-cfg` config
This PR updates the diagnostics output of the `unexpected_cfgs` lint for Cargo new `check-cfg` config.
It's a simple and cost-less alternative to the build-script `cargo::rustc-check-cfg` instruction.
```toml
[lints.rust]
unexpected_cfgs = { level = "warn", check-cfg = ['cfg(foo, values("bar"))'] }
```
This PR also adds a Cargo specific section regarding check-cfg and Cargo inside rustc's book (motivation is described inside the file, but mainly check-cfg is a rustc feature not a Cargo one, Cargo only enabled the feature, it does not own it; T-cargo even considers the `check-cfg` lint config to be an implementation detail).
This PR also updates the links to refer to that sub-page when using Cargo from rustc.
As well as updating the lint doc to refer to the check-cfg docs.
~**Not to be merged before https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/13913 reaches master!**~ (EDIT: merged in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125237)
`@rustbot` label +F-check-cfg
r? `@fmease` *(feel free to roll)*
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124800
cc `@epage` `@weihanglo`
chore: Remove repeated words (extension of #124924)
When I saw #124924 I thought "Hey, I'm sure that there are far more than just two typos of this nature in the codebase". So here's some more typo-fixing.
Some found with regex, some found with a spellchecker. Every single one manually reviewed by me (along with hundreds of false negatives by the tools)
Rename Unsafe to Safety
Alternative to #124455, which is to just have one Safety enum to use everywhere, this opens the posibility of adding `ast::Safety::Safe` that's useful for unsafe extern blocks.
This leaves us today with:
```rust
enum ast::Safety {
Unsafe(Span),
Default,
// Safe (going to be added for unsafe extern blocks)
}
enum hir::Safety {
Unsafe,
Safe,
}
```
We would convert from `ast::Safety::Default` into the right Safety level according the context.
Fix, document, and test parser and pretty-printer edge cases related to braced macro calls
_Review note: this is a deceptively small PR because it comes with 145 lines of docs and 196 lines of tests, and only 25 lines of compiler code changed. However, I recommend reviewing it 1 commit at a time because much of the effect of the code changes is non-local i.e. affecting code that is not visible in the final state of the PR. I have paid attention that reviewing the PR one commit at a time is as easy as I can make it. All of the code you need to know about is touched in those commits, even if some of those changes disappear by the end of the stack._
This is a follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119105. One case that is not relevant to `-Zunpretty=expanded`, but which came up as I'm porting #119105 and #118726 into `syn`'s printer and `prettyplease`'s printer where it **is** relevant, and is also relevant to rustc's `stringify!`, is statement boundaries in the vicinity of braced macro calls.
Rustc's AST pretty-printer produces invalid syntax for statements that begin with a braced macro call:
```rust
macro_rules! stringify_item {
($i:item) => {
stringify!($i)
};
}
macro_rules! repro {
($e:expr) => {
stringify_item!(fn main() { $e + 1; })
};
}
fn main() {
println!("{}", repro!(m! {}));
}
```
**Before this PR:** output is not valid Rust syntax.
```console
fn main() { m! {} + 1; }
```
```console
error: leading `+` is not supported
--> <anon>:1:19
|
1 | fn main() { m! {} + 1; }
| ^ unexpected `+`
|
help: try removing the `+`
|
1 - fn main() { m! {} + 1; }
1 + fn main() { m! {} 1; }
|
```
**After this PR:** valid syntax.
```console
fn main() { (m! {}) + 1; }
```
This commit by itself is supposed to have no effect on behavior. All of
the call sites are updated to preserve their previous behavior.
The behavior changes are in the commits that follow.
