Don't ICE during RPITIT refinement checking for resolution errors after normalization
#126670 shows a case where resolution errors after normalization can happen during RPITIT refinement checking. Our tests didn't reach this path before, and we explicitly ICEd until we had a test. We can now delay a bug since we're sure it is reachable and have the test from the isue.
The comment I added likely still needs more expert wordsmithing.
r? ``@compiler-errors`` who's making me work during vacation (j/k).
Fixes#126670
Change E0369 to give note informations for foreign items.
Change E0369 to give note informations for foreign items.
Make it easy for developers to understand why the binop cannot be applied.
fixes#125631
Fix a span in `parse_ty_bare_fn`.
It currently goes one token too far.
Example: line 259 of `tests/ui/abi/compatibility.rs`:
```
test_abi_compatible!(fn_fn, fn(), fn(i32) -> i32);
```
This commit changes the span for the second element from `fn(),` to `fn()`, i.e. removes the extraneous comma.
This doesn't affect any tests. I found it while debugging some other code. Not a big deal but an easy fix so I figure it worth doing.
r? ``@spastorino``
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
It currently goes one token too far.
Example: line 259 of `tests/ui/abi/compatibility.rs`:
```
test_abi_compatible!(fn_fn, fn(), fn(i32) -> i32);
```
This commit changes the span for the second element from `fn(),` to
`fn()`, i.e. removes the extraneous comma.
Detect unused structs which derived Default
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Fixes#98871
Don't suggest awaiting in closure patterns
Fixes#126903.
For
```rust
async fn do_async() {}
fn main() {
Some(do_async()).map(|()| {});
}
```
the error is now
```rust
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:4:27
|
4 | Some(do_async()).map(|()| {});
| ^^
| |
| expected future, found `()`
| expected due to this
|
= note: expected opaque type `impl Future<Output = ()>`
found unit type `()`
```
Ideally, if `main` were to be `async`, it should be
```rs
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:4:27
|
4 | Some(do_async()).map(|()| {});
| ^^
| |
| expected future, found `()`
| expected due to this
|
= note: expected opaque type `impl Future<Output = ()>`
found unit type `()`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | Some(do_async().await).map(|()| {});
| ++++++
```
However, this would mean `FnCtx::check_pat_top` would have to be called with an `origin_expr` in `rustc_hir_typeck::check::check_fn`, and that expr would have to be somehow plumbed through `FnCtxt::check_expr_closure` and closure signature deduction. I'm willing to work on the plumbing but unsure how to start.
Do not ICE when suggesting dereferencing closure arg
Account for `for` lifetimes when constructing closure to see if dereferencing the return value would be valid.
Fix#125634, fix#124563.
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
ast: Standardize visiting order for attributes and node IDs
This should only affect `macro_rules` scopes and order of diagnostics.
Also add a deprecation lint for `macro_rules` called outside of their scope, like in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124535.
Various refactorings to rustc_interface
This should make it easier to move the driver interface away from queries in the future. Many custom drivers call queries like `queries.global_ctxt()` before they are supposed to be called, breaking some things like certain `--print` and `-Zunpretty` options, `-Zparse-only` and emitting the dep info at the wrong point in time. They are also not actually necessary at all. Passing around the query output manually would avoid recomputation too and would be just as easy. Removing driver queries would also reduce the amount of global mutable state of the compiler. I'm not removing driver queries in this PR to avoid breaking the aforementioned custom drivers.
transmute size check: properly account for alignment
Fixes another place where ZST alignment was ignored when checking whether something is a newtype. I wonder how many more of these there are...
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101084
Allow constraining opaque types during various unsizing casts
allows unsizing of tuples, arrays and Adts to constraint opaque types in their generic parameters to concrete types on either side of the unsizing cast.
Also allows constraining opaque types during trait object casts that only differ in auto traits or lifetimes.
cc #116652
coverage: Overhaul validation of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute
This PR makes sweeping changes to how the (currently-unstable) coverage attribute is validated:
- Multiple coverage attributes on the same item/expression are now treated as an error.
- The attribute must always be `#[coverage(off)]` or `#[coverage(on)]`, and the error messages for this are more consistent.
- A trailing comma is still allowed after off/on, since that's part of the normal attribute syntax.
- Some places that silently ignored a coverage attribute now produce an error instead.
- These cases were all clearly bugs.
- Some places that ignored a coverage attribute (with a warning) now produce an error instead.
- These were originally added as lints, but I don't think it makes much sense to knowingly allow new attributes to be used in meaningless places.
- Some of these errors might soon disappear, if it's easy to extend recursive coverage attributes to things like modules and impl blocks.
---
One of the goals of this PR is to lay a more solid foundation for making the coverage attribute recursive, so that it applies to all nested functions/closures instead of just the one it is directly attached to.
Fixes#126658.
This PR incorporates #126659, which adds more tests for validation of the coverage attribute.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
SmartPointer derive-macro
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Possibly replacing #123472 for continued upkeep of the proposal rust-lang/rfcs#3621 and implementation of the tracking issue #123430.
cc `@Darksonn` `@wedsonaf`
Deprecate no-op codegen option `-Cinline-threshold=...`
This deprecates `-Cinline-threshold` since using it has no effect. This has been the case since the new LLVM pass manager started being used, more than 2 years ago.
Recommend using `-Cllvm-args=--inline-threshold=...` instead.
Closes#89742 which is E-help-wanted.
Show notice about "never used" of Debug for enum
Close#123068
If an ADT implements `Debug` trait and it is not used, the compiler says a note that indicates intentionally ignored during dead code analysis as [this note](2207179a59/tests/ui/lint/dead-code/unused-variant.stderr (L9)).
However this node is not shown for variants that have fields in enum. This PR fixes to show the note.
Special case when a code line only has multiline span starts
Minimize multline span overlap when there are multiple of them starting on the same line:
```
3 | X0 Y0 Z0
| _____^ - -
| | _______| |
| || _________|
4 | ||| X1 Y1 Z1
5 | ||| X2 Y2 Z2
| |||____^__-__- `Z` label
| ||_____|__|
| |______| `Y` is a good letter too
| `X` is a good letter
```
Fix 32-bit Arm reg classes by hierarchically sorting them
We were rejecting legal `asm!` because we were asking for the "greatest" feature that includes a register class, instead of the "least" feature that includes a register class. This was only revealed on certain 32-bit Arm targets because not all have the same register limitations.
This is a somewhat hacky solution, but other solutions would require potentially rearchitecting how the internals of parsing or rejecting register classes work for all targets.
Fixes#126797
r? ``@Amanieu``
For [E0308]: mismatched types, when expr is in an arm's body, not add semicolon ';' at the end of it.
For [E0308]: mismatched types, when expr is in an arm's body, and it is the end expr without a semicolon of the block, not add semicolon ';' at the end of it.
fixes#126222
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Add hard error and migration lint for unsafe attrs
More implementation work for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123757
This adds the migration lint for unsafe attributes, as well as making it a hard error in Rust 2024.
Replace `f16` and `f128` pattern matching stubs with real implementations
This section of code depends on `rustc_apfloat` rather than our internal types, so this is one potential ICE that we should be able to melt now.
r? `@Nadrieril`
This section of code depends on `rustc_apfloat` rather than our internal
types, so this is one potential ICE that we should be able to melt now.
This also fixes some missing range and match handling in `rustc_middle`.
