This is needed to track anon const parents properly once we implement
`ConstArgKind::Path` (which requires moving anon const def-creation
outside of `DefCollector`):
Why do we need this in addition to [`Self::current_hir_id_owner`]?
Currently (as of June 2024), anonymous constants are not HIR owners;
however, they do get their own DefIds. Some of these DefIds have to be
created during AST lowering, rather than def collection, because we
can't tell until after name resolution whether an anonymous constant
will end up instead being a [`rustc_hir::ConstArgKind::Path`]. However,
to compute which generics are available to an anonymous constant nested
inside another, we need to make sure that the parent is recorded as the
parent anon const, not the enclosing item. So we need to track parent
defs differently from HIR owners, since they will be finer-grained in
the case of anon consts.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126618 (Mark assoc tys live only if the corresponding trait is live)
- #126746 (Deny `use<>` for RPITITs)
- #126868 (not use offset when there is not ends with brace)
- #126884 (Do not ICE when suggesting dereferencing closure arg)
- #126893 (Eliminate the distinction between PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN precedence level)
- #126915 (Don't suggest awaiting in closure patterns)
- #126943 (De-duplicate all consecutive native libs regardless of their options)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Deny `use<>` for RPITITs
Precise capturing `use<>` syntax is currently a no-op on RPITITs, since GATs have no variance, so all captured lifetimes are captured invariantly.
We don't currently *need* to support `use<>` on RPITITs, since `use<>` is initially intended for migrating RPIT *overcaptures* from edition 2021->2024, but since RPITITs currently capture all in-scope lifetimes, we'll never need to write `use<>` on an RPITIT.
Eventually, though, it would be desirable to support precise capturing on RPITITs, since RPITITs overcapturing by default can be annoying to some folks. But let's separate that (which will likely require some delicate types team work for adding variances to GATs and adjusting the refinement rules) from the stabilization of the feature for edition 2024.
r? oli-obk cc ``@traviscross``
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123432
Place tail expression behind terminating scope
This PR implements #123739 so that we can do further experiments in nightly.
A little rewrite has been applied to `for await` lowering. It was previously `unsafe { Pin::unchecked_new(into_async_iter(..)) }`. Under the edition 2024 rule, however, `into_async_iter` gets dropped at the end of the `unsafe` block. This presumably the first Edition 2024 migration rule goes by hoisting `into_async_iter(..)` into `match` one level above, so it now looks like the following.
```rust
match into_async_iter($iter_expr) {
ref mut iter => match unsafe { Pin::unchecked_new(iter) } {
...
}
}
```
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
Parse unsafe attributes
Initial parse implementation for #123757
This is the initial work to parse unsafe attributes, which is represented as an extra `unsafety` field in `MetaItem` and `AttrItem`. There's two areas in the code where it appears that parsing is done manually and not using the parser stuff, and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to thread the change there.
Rename HIR `TypeBinding` to `AssocItemConstraint` and related cleanup
Rename `hir::TypeBinding` and `ast::AssocConstraint` to `AssocItemConstraint` and update all items and locals using the old terminology.
Motivation: The terminology *type binding* is extremely outdated. "Type bindings" not only include constraints on associated *types* but also on associated *constants* (feature `associated_const_equality`) and on RPITITs of associated *functions* (feature `return_type_notation`). Hence the word *item* in the new name. Furthermore, the word *binding* commonly refers to a mapping from a binder/identifier to a "value" for some definition of "value". Its use in "type binding" made sense when equality constraints (e.g., `AssocTy = Ty`) were the only kind of associated item constraint. Nowadays however, we also have *associated type bounds* (e.g., `AssocTy: Bound`) for which the term *binding* doesn't make sense.
---
Old terminology (HIR, rustdoc):
```
`TypeBinding`: (associated) type binding
├── `Constraint`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: (associated) equality constraint (?)
├── `Ty`: (associated) type binding
└── `Const`: associated const equality (constraint)
```
Old terminology (AST, abbrev.):
```
`AssocConstraint`
├── `Bound`
└── `Equality`
├── `Ty`
└── `Const`
```
New terminology (AST, HIR, rustdoc):
```
`AssocItemConstraint`: associated item constraint
├── `Bound`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: associated item equality constraint OR associated item binding (for short)
├── `Ty`: associated type equality constraint OR associated type binding (for short)
└── `Const`: associated const equality constraint OR associated const binding (for short)
```
r? compiler-errors
The starting point for this was identical comments on two different
fields, in `ast::VariantData::Struct` and `hir::VariantData::Struct`:
```
// FIXME: investigate making this a `Option<ErrorGuaranteed>`
recovered: bool
```
I tried that, and then found that I needed to add an `ErrorGuaranteed`
to `Recovered::Yes`. Then I ended up using `Recovered` instead of
`Option<ErrorGuaranteed>` for these two places and elsewhere, which
required moving `ErrorGuaranteed` from `rustc_parse` to `rustc_ast`.
This makes things more consistent, because `Recovered` is used in more
places, and there are fewer uses of `bool` and
`Option<ErrorGuaranteed>`. And safer, because it's difficult/impossible
to set `recovered` to `Recovered::Yes` without having emitted an error.
Remove braces when fixing a nested use tree into a single item
[Back in 2019](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/56645) I added rustfix support for the `unused_imports` lint, to automatically remove them when running `cargo fix`. For the most part this worked great, but when removing all but one childs of a nested use tree it turned `use foo::{Unused, Used}` into `use foo::{Used}`. This is slightly annoying, because it then requires you to run `rustfmt` to get `use foo::Used`.
This PR automatically removes braces and the surrouding whitespace when all but one child of a nested use tree are unused. To get it done I had to add the span of the nested use tree to the AST, and refactor a bit the code I wrote back then.
A thing I noticed is, there doesn't seem to be any `//@ run-rustfix` test for fixing the `unused_imports` lint. I created a test in `tests/suggestions` (is that the right directory?) that for now tests just what I added in the PR. I can followup in a separate PR to add more tests for fixing `unused_lints`.
This PR is best reviewed commit-by-commit.
