Fix `tests/debuginfo/strings-and-strs`.
It fails on my machine because it embeds pointer addresses in the expected output.
This commit replaces the addresses with `0x[...]`.
r? ```@Mark-Simulacrum```
defrost `RUST_MIN_STACK=ice rustc hello.rs`
I didn't think too hard about testing my previous PR rust-lang/rust#122847 which makes our stack overflow handler assist people in discovering the `RUST_MIN_STACK` variable (which apparently is surprisingly useful for Really Big codebases). After it was merged, some useful comments left in a drive-by review led me to discover I had added an ICE. This reworks the code a bit to explain the rationale, remove the ICE that I introduced, and properly test one of the diagnostics.
fix suggestion in E0373 for !Unpin coroutines
Coroutines can be prefixed with the `static` keyword to make them
`!Unpin`.
However, given the following function:
```rust
fn check() -> impl Sized {
let x = 0;
#[coroutine]
static || {
yield;
x
}
}
```
We currently suggest prefixing `move` before `static`, which is
syntactically incorrect:
```
error[E0373]: coroutine may outlive the current function, but it borrows
...
--> src/main.rs:6:5
|
6 | static || {
| ^^^^^^^^^ may outlive borrowed value `x`
7 | yield;
8 | x
| - `x` is borrowed here
|
note: coroutine is returned here
--> src/main.rs:6:5
|
6 | / static || {
7 | | yield;
8 | | x
9 | | }
| |_____^
help: to force the coroutine to take ownership of `x` (and any other
referenced variables), use the `move` keyword
| // this is syntactically incorrect, it should be `static move ||`
6 | move static || {
| ++++
```
This PR suggests adding `move` after `static` for these coroutines.
I also added a UI test for this case.
Never type unsafe lint improvements
- Move linting code to a separate method
- Remove mentions of `core::convert::absurd` (#124311 was rejected)
- Make the lint into FCW
The last thing is a bit weird though. On one hand it should be `EditionSemanticsChange(2024)`, but on the other hand it shouldn't, because we also plan to break it on all editions some time later. _Also_, it's weird that we don't have `FutureReleaseSemanticsChangeReportInDeps`, IMO "this might cause UB in a future release" is important enough to be reported in deps...
IMO we ought to have three enums instead of [`FutureIncompatibilityReason`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_lint_defs/enum.FutureIncompatibilityReason.html#):
```rust
enum IncompatibilityWhen {
FutureRelease,
Edition(Edition),
}
enum IncompatibilyWhat {
Error,
SemanticChange,
}
enum IncompatibilityReportInDeps {
No,
Yes,
}
```
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123748
An earlier commit included the change for a suggestion here.
Unfortunately, it also used unwrap instead of dying properly.
Roll out the ~~rice paper~~ EarlyDiagCtxt before we do anything that
might leave a mess.
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)
Actually use the `#[do_not_recommend]` attribute if present
This change tweaks the error message generation to actually use the `#[do_not_recommend]` attribute if present by just skipping the marked trait impl in favour of the parent impl. It also adds a compile test for this behaviour. Without this change the test would output the following error:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `&str: Expression` is not satisfied
--> /home/weiznich/Documents/rust/rust/tests/ui/diagnostic_namespace/do_not_recommend.rs:53:15
|
LL | SelectInt.check("bar");
| ^^^^^ the trait `Expression` is not implemented for `&str`, which is required by `&str: AsExpression<Integer>`
|
= help: the following other types implement trait `Expression`:
Bound<T>
SelectInt
note: required for `&str` to implement `AsExpression<Integer>`
--> /home/weiznich/Documents/rust/rust/tests/ui/diagnostic_namespace/do_not_recommend.rs:26:13
|
LL | impl<T, ST> AsExpression<ST> for T
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
LL | where
LL | T: Expression<SqlType = ST>,
| ------------------------ unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
```
Note how that mentions `&str: Expression` before and now mentions `&str: AsExpression<Integer>` instead which is much more helpful for users.
Open points for further changes before stabilization:
* We likely want to move the attribute to the `#[diagnostic]` namespace to relax the guarantees given?
* How does it interact with the new trait solver?
r? `@estebank`
This change tweaks the error message generation to actually use the
`#[do_not_recommend]` attribute if present by just skipping the marked
trait impl in favour of the parent impl. It also adds a compile test for
this behaviour. Without this change the test would output the following
error:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `&str: Expression` is not satisfied
--> /home/weiznich/Documents/rust/rust/tests/ui/diagnostic_namespace/do_not_recommend.rs:53:15
|
LL | SelectInt.check("bar");
| ^^^^^ the trait `Expression` is not implemented for `&str`, which is required by `&str: AsExpression<Integer>`
|
= help: the following other types implement trait `Expression`:
Bound<T>
SelectInt
note: required for `&str` to implement `AsExpression<Integer>`
--> /home/weiznich/Documents/rust/rust/tests/ui/diagnostic_namespace/do_not_recommend.rs:26:13
|
LL | impl<T, ST> AsExpression<ST> for T
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
LL | where
LL | T: Expression<SqlType = ST>,
| ------------------------ unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
```
Note how that mentions `&str: Expression` before and now mentions `&str:
AsExpression<Integer>` instead which is much more helpful for users.
Open points for further changes before stabilization:
* We likely want to move the attribute to the `#[diagnostic]` namespace
to relax the guarantees given?
* How does it interact with the new trait solver?
Add tests for `-Zunpretty=expanded` ported from stringify's tests
This PR adds a new set of tests for the AST pretty-printer.
Previously, pretty-printer edge cases were tested by way of `stringify!` in [tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.78.0/tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs), such as the tests added by 419b26931b and 527e2eac17.
Those tests will no longer provide effective coverage of the AST pretty-printer after #124141. `Nonterminal` and `TokenKind::Interpolated` are being removed, and a consequence is that `stringify!` will perform token stream pretty printing, instead of AST pretty printing, in all of the `stringify!` cases including $:expr and all other interpolations.
This PR adds 2 new ui tests with `compile-flags: -Zunpretty=expanded`:
- **tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-exhaustive.rs** — this test aims for exhaustive coverage of all the variants of `ExprKind`, `ItemKind`, `PatKind`, `StmtKind`, `TyKind`, and `VisibilityKind`. Some parts could use being fleshed out further, but the current state is roughly on par with what exists in the old stringify-based tests.
- **tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-interpolation.rs** — this test covers tricky macro metavariable edge cases that require the AST pretty printer to synthesize parentheses in order for the printed code to be valid Rust syntax.
r? `@nnethercote`
Only make GAT ambiguous in `match_projection_projections` considering shallow resolvability
In #123537, I tweaked the hack from #93892 to use `resolve_vars_if_possible` instead of `shallow_resolve`. This considers more inference guidance ambiguous. This resulted in crater regressions in #125196.
I've effectively reverted the change to the old behavior. That being said, I don't *like* this behavior, but I'd rather keep it for now since #123537 was not meant to make any behavioral changes. See the attached example.
This also affects the new solver, for the record, which doesn't have any rules about not guiding inference from param-env candidates which may constrain GAT args as a side-effect.
r? `@lcnr` or `@jackh726`
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.
Improve parser
Fixes#124935.
- Add a few more help diagnostics to incorrect semicolons
- Overall improved that function
- Addded a few comments
- Renamed diff_marker fns to git_diff_marker
Fix println! ICE when parsing percent prefix number
This PR fixes#125002 ICE occurring, for example, with `println!("%100000", 1)` or `println!("% 100000", 1)`.
## Test Case/Change Explanation
The return type of `Num::from_str` has been changed to `Option<Self>` to handle errors when parsing large integers fails.
1. The first `println!` in the test case covers the change of the first `Num::from_str` usage in `format_foreign.rs:426`.
2. The second `println!` in the test case covers the change of the second `Num::from_str` usage in line 460.
3. The 3rd to 5th `Num::from_str` usages behave the same as before.
The 3rd usage would cause an ICE when `num > u16::MAX` in the previous version, but this commit does not include a fix for the ICE in `println!("{:100000$}")`. I think we need to emit an error in the compiler and have more discussion in another issue/PR.
Migrate `run-make/issue64319` to `rmake` and rename
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
~~I noticed that the Makefile was not listed in `allowed-run-makefiles` in Tidy. Does this mean the test was being ignored?~~ EDIT: No, it was there, just not in its expected alphabetical order.
EDIT2: Perhaps it could be interesting to clean this test visually by looping over the `rustc` calls, like in #125227.
Update `expr` matcher for Edition 2024 and add `expr_2021` nonterminal
This commit adds a new nonterminal `expr_2021` in macro patterns, and `expr_fragment_specifier_2024` feature flag.
This change also updates `expr` so that on Edition 2024 it will also match `const { ... }` blocks, while `expr_2021` preserves the current behavior of `expr`, matching expressions without `const` blocks.
Joint work with `@vincenzopalazzo.`
Issue #123742
