Rework `no_coverage` to `coverage(off)`
As discussed at the tail of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84605 this replaces the `no_coverage` attribute with a `coverage` attribute that takes sub-parameters (currently `off` and `on`) to control the coverage instrumentation.
Allows future-proofing for things like `coverage(off, reason="Tested live", issue="#12345")` or similar.
Resolve visibility paths as modules not as types.
Asking for a resolution with `opt_ns = Some(TypeNS)` allows path resolution to look for type-relative paths, leaving unresolved segments behind. However, for visibility paths we really need to look for a module, so we need to pass `opt_ns = None`.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/109146
r? `@petrochenkov`
Forbid old-style `simd_shuffleN` intrinsics
Don't merge before https://github.com/rust-lang/packed_simd/pull/350 has made its way to crates.io
We used to support specifying the lane length of simd_shuffle ops by attaching the lane length to the name of the intrinsic (like `simd_shuffle16`). After this PR, you cannot do that anymore, and need to instead either rely on inference of the `idx` argument type or specify it as `simd_shuffle::<_, [u32; 16], _>`.
r? `@workingjubilee`
It lints against features that are inteded to be internal to the
compiler and standard library. Implements MCP #596.
We allow `internal_features` in the standard library and compiler as those
use many features and this _is_ the standard library from the "internal to the compiler and
standard library" after all.
Marking some features as internal wasn't exactly the most scientific approach, I just marked some
mostly obvious features. While there is a categorization in the macro,
it's not very well upheld (should probably be fixed in another PR).
We always pass `-Ainternal_features` in the testsuite
About 400 UI tests and several other tests use internal features.
Instead of throwing the attribute on each one, just always allow them.
There's nothing wrong with testing internal features^^
Include the computed alignment of the violating field when rejecting
transparent types with non-trivially aligned ZSTs.
ZST member fields in transparent types must have an alignment of 1 (to
ensure it does not raise the layout requirements of the transparent
field). The current error message looks like this:
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ has alignment larger than 1
This patch changes the report to include the alignment of the violating
field:
LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]);
| ^^^^^^^^ has alignment of 4, which is larger than 1
In case of unknown alignments, it will yield:
LL | struct Foobar<T>(u32, [T; 0]);
| ^^^^^^ may have alignment larger than 1
This allows developers to get a better grasp why a specific field is
rejected. Knowing the alignment of the violating field makes it easier
to judge where that alignment-requirement originates, and thus hopefully
provide better hints on how to mitigate the problem.
This idea was proposed in 2022 in #98071 as part of a bigger change.
This commit simply extracts this error-message change, to decouple it
from the other diagnostic improvements.
Various changes to name resolution of anon consts
Sorry this PR is kind of all over the place ^^'
Fixes#111012
- Rewrites anon const nameres to all go through `fn resolve_anon_const` explicitly instead of `visit_anon_const` to ensure that we do not accidentally resolve anon consts as if they are allowed to use generics when they aren't. Also means that we dont have bits of code for resolving anon consts that will get out of sync (i.e. legacy const generics and resolving path consts that were parsed as type arguments)
- Renames two of the `LifetimeRibKind`, `AnonConst -> ConcreteAnonConst` and `ConstGeneric -> ConstParamTy`
- Noticed while doing this that under `generic_const_exprs` all lifetimes currently get resolved to errors without any error being emitted which was causing a bunch of tests to pass without their bugs having been fixed, incidentally fixed that in this PR and marked those tests as `// known-bug:`. I'm fine to break those since `generic_const_exprs` is a very unstable incomplete feature and this PR _does_ make generic_const_exprs "less broken" as a whole, also I can't be assed to figure out what the underlying causes of all of them are. This PR reopens#77357#83993
- Changed `generics_of` to stop providing generics and predicates to enum variant discriminant anon consts since those are not allowed to use generic parameters
- Updated the error for non 'static lifetime in const arguments and the error for non 'static lifetime in const param tys to use `derive(Diagnostic)`
I have a vague idea why const-arg-in-const-arg.rs, in-closure.rs and simple.rs have started failing which is unfortunate since these were deliberately made to work, I think lifetime resolution being broken just means this regressed at some point and nobody noticed because the tests were not testing anything :( I'm fine breaking these too for the same reason as the tests for #77357#83993. I couldn't get `// known-bug` to work for these ICEs and just kept getting different stderr between CI and local `--bless` so I just removed them and will create an issue to track re-adding (and fixing) the bugs if this PR lands.
r? `@cjgillot` cc `@compiler-errors`
Adds the extended error documentation for E0523 to indicate that the
error is no longer produced by the compiler.
Update the E0464 documentation to include example code that produces the
error.
Remove the error message E0523 from the compiler and replace it with an
internal compiler error.
document + UI test `E0208` and make its output more user-friendly
Cleans up `E0208`'s output a lot. It could actually be useful for someone learning about variance now. I also added a UI test for it in `tests/ui/error-codes/` and wrote some docs for it.
r? `@GuillaumeGomez` another error code, can't be bothered to find the issue :P. Obviously there's some compiler stuff, so you'll have to hand it off.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61137.
