Fix incorrect suggestion for undeclared hrtb lifetimes in where clauses.
For poly-trait-ref like `for<'a> Trait<T>` in `T: for<'a> Trait<T> + 'b { }`.
We should merge the hrtb lifetimes: existed `for<'a>` and suggestion `for<'b>` or will get err: [E0316] nested quantification of lifetimes
fixes#122714
Relax restrictions on multiple sanitizers
Most combinations of LLVM sanitizers are legal-enough to enable simultaneously. This change will allow simultaneously enabling ASAN and shadow call stacks on supported platforms.
I used this python script to generate the mutually-exclusive sanitizer combinations:
```python
#!/usr/bin/python3
import subprocess
flags = [
["-fsanitize=address"],
["-fsanitize=leak"],
["-fsanitize=memory"],
["-fsanitize=thread"],
["-fsanitize=hwaddress"],
["-fsanitize=cfi", "-flto", "-fvisibility=hidden"],
["-fsanitize=memtag", "--target=aarch64-linux-android", "-march=armv8a+memtag"],
["-fsanitize=shadow-call-stack"],
["-fsanitize=kcfi", "-flto", "-fvisibility=hidden"],
["-fsanitize=kernel-address"],
["-fsanitize=safe-stack"],
["-fsanitize=dataflow"],
]
for i in range(len(flags)):
for j in range(i):
command = ["clang++"] + flags[i] + flags[j] + ["-o", "main.o", "-c", "main.cpp"]
completed = subprocess.run(command, stderr=subprocess.DEVNULL)
if completed.returncode != 0:
first = flags[i][0][11:].replace('-', '').upper()
second = flags[j][0][11:].replace('-', '').upper()
print(f"(SanitizerSet::{first}, SanitizerSet::{second}),")
```
Add `IntoIterator` for `Box<[T]>` + edition 2024-specific lints
* Adds a similar method probe opt-out mechanism to the `[T;N]: IntoIterator` implementation for edition 2021.
* Adjusts the relevant lints (shadowed `.into_iter()` calls, new source of method ambiguity).
* Adds some tests.
* Took the liberty to rework the logic in the `ARRAY_INTO_ITER` lint, since it was kind of confusing.
Based mostly off of #116607.
ACP: rust-lang/libs-team#263
References #59878
Tracking for Rust 2024: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123759
Crater run was done here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116607#issuecomment-1770293013
Consensus afaict was that there is too much breakage, so let's do this in an edition-dependent way much like `[T; N]: IntoIterator`.
Follow-up fixes to `report_return_mismatched_types`
Some renames, simplifications, fixes, etc. Follow-ups to #123804. I don't think it totally disentangles this code, but it does remove some of the worst offenders on the "I am so confused" scale (e.g. `get_node_fn_decl`).
track cycle participants per root
The search graph may have multiple roots, e.g. in
```
A :- B
B :- A, C
C :- D
D :- C
```
we first encounter the `A -> B -> A` cycle which causes `A` to be a root. We then later encounter the `C -> D -> C` cycle as a nested goal of `B`. This cycle is completely separate and `C` will get moved to the global cache. This previously caused us to use `[B, D]` as the `cycle_participants` for `C` and `[]` for `A`.
split off from #125167 as I would like to merge this change separately and will rebase that PR on top of this one. There is no test for this issue and I don't quite know how to write one. It is probably worth it to generalize the search graph to enable us to write unit tests for it.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Note for E0599 if shadowed bindings has the method.
implement #123558
Use a visitor to find earlier shadowed bingings which has the method.
r? ``@estebank``
Remove libc from MSVC targets
``@ChrisDenton`` started working on a project to remove libc from Windows MSVC targets. I'm completing that work here.
The primary change is to cfg out the dependency in `library/`. And then there's a lot of test patching. Happy to separate this more if people want.
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`
Suggest setting lifetime in borrowck error involving types with elided lifetimes
```
error: lifetime may not live long enough
--> $DIR/ex3-both-anon-regions-both-are-structs-2.rs:7:5
|
LL | fn foo(mut x: Ref, y: Ref) {
| ----- - has type `Ref<'_, '1>`
| |
| has type `Ref<'_, '2>`
LL | x.b = y.b;
| ^^^^^^^^^ assignment requires that `'1` must outlive `'2`
|
help: consider introducing a named lifetime parameter
|
LL | fn foo<'a>(mut x: Ref<'a, 'a>, y: Ref<'a, 'a>) {
| ++++ ++++++++ ++++++++
```
As can be seen above, it currently doesn't try to compare the `ty::Ty` lifetimes that diverged vs the `hir::Ty` to correctly suggest the following
```
help: consider introducing a named lifetime parameter
|
LL | fn foo<'a>(mut x: Ref<'_, 'a>, y: Ref<'_, 'a>) {
| ++++ ++++++++ ++++++++
```
but I believe this to still be an improvement over the status quo.
Fix#40990.
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)
