Fix non-capturing closure return type coercion
Fixes#88097. For the example given there:
```rust
fn peculiar() -> impl Fn(u8) -> u8 {
return |x| x + 1
}
```
which incorrectly reports an error, I noticed something weird in the debug log:
```
DEBUG rustc_typeck::check::coercion coercion::try_find_coercion_lub([closure@test.rs:2:12: 2:21], [closure@test.rs:2:12: 2:21], exprs=1 exprs)
```
Apparently, `try_find_coercion_lub()` thinks that the LUB for two closure types always has to be a function pointer (which explains the `expected closure, found fn pointer` error in #88097). There is one corner case where that isn't true, though — namely, when the two closure types are equal, in which case the trivial LUB is the type itself. This PR fixes this by inserting an explicit check for type equality in `try_find_coercion_lub()`.
Reword description of automatic impls of `Unsize`.
The existing documentation felt a little unhelpfully concise, so this change tries to improve it by using longer sentences, each of which specifies which kinds of types it applies to as early as possible. In particular, the third item starts with “Structs ...” instead of saying “Foo is a struct” later.
Also, the previous list items “Only the last field has a type involving `T`” and “`T` is not part of the type of any other fields” are, as far as I see, redundant with each other, so I removed the latter.
I have no particular knowledge of `Unsize`; I have attempted to leave the meaning entirely unchanged but may have missed a nuance.
Markdown preview of the edited documentation:
> All implementations of `Unsize` are provided automatically by the compiler.
> Those implementations are:
>
> - Arrays `[T; N]` implement `Unsize<[T]>`.
> - Types implementing a trait `Trait` also implement `Unsize<dyn Trait>`.
> - Structs `Foo<..., T, ...>` implement `Unsize<Foo<..., U, ...>>` if all of these conditions
> are met:
> - `T: Unsize<U>`.
> - Only the last field of `Foo` has a type involving `T`.
> - `Bar<T>: Unsize<Bar<U>>`, where `Bar<T>` stands for the actual type of that last field.
rustc: use more correct span data in for loop desugaring
Fixes#82462
Before:
help: consider adding semicolon after the expression so its temporaries are dropped sooner, before the local variables declared by the block are dropped
|
LL | for x in DroppingSlice(&*v).iter(); {
| +
After:
help: consider adding semicolon after the expression so its temporaries are dropped sooner, before the local variables declared by the block are dropped
|
LL | };
| +
This seems like a reasonable fix: since the desugared "expr_drop_temps_mut" contains the entire desugared loop construct, its span should contain the entire loop construct as well.
Now that we encode spans relative to the items, the item's own span is
never actually hashed as part of the HIR.
In consequence, we explicitly include it in the crate hash to avoid
missing cross-crate invalidations.
Fix table in docblocks
"Overwrite" of #88702.
Instead of adding a z-index to the sidebar (which only hides the issue, doesn't fix it), I wrap `<table>` elements inside a `<div>` and limit all chidren of `.docblock` elements' width to prevent having the scrollbar on the whole doc block.
Thanks `@nbdd0121` for `overflow-x: auto;`. ;)
r? `@notriddle`
RustWrapper: avoid deleted unclear attribute methods
These were deleted in https://reviews.llvm.org/D108614, and in C++ I
definitely see the argument for their removal. I didn't try and
propagate the changes up into higher layers of rustc in this change
because my initial goal was to get rustc working against LLVM HEAD
promptly, but I'm happy to follow up with some refactoring to make the
API on the Rust side match the LLVM API more directly (though the way
the enum works in Rust makes the API less scary IMO).
r? ``@nagisa`` cc ``@nikic``
Rustdoc coverage fields count
Follow-up of #88688.
Instead of requiring enum tuple variant fields and tuple struct fields to be documented, we count them if they are documented, otherwise we don't include them in the count.
r? `@Manishearth`
Emit proper errors when on missing closure braces
This commit focuses on emitting clean errors for the following syntax
error:
```
Some(42).map(|a|
dbg!(a);
a
);
```
Previous implementation tried to recover after parsing the closure body
(the `dbg` expression) by replacing the next `;` with a `,`, which made
the next expression belong to the next function argument. As such, the
following errors were emitted (among others):
- the semicolon token was not expected,
- a is not in scope,
- Option::map is supposed to take one argument, not two.
This commit allows us to gracefully handle this situation by adding
giving the parser the ability to remember when it has just parsed a
closure body inside a function call. When this happens, we can treat the
unexpected `;` specifically and try to parse as much statements as
possible in order to eat the whole block. When we can't parse statements
anymore, we generate a clean error indicating that the braces are
missing, and return an ExprKind::Err.
Closes#88065.
r? `@estebank`
Fix stray notes when the source code is not available
Fixes#87060. To reproduce it with a local build of rustc, you have to copy the compiler (e.g. `build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/`) somewhere and then rename the compiler source directory (maybe there is a smarter way as well). Then, rustc won't find the standard library sources and report stray notes such as
```
note: deref defined here
```
with no location for "here". Another example I've found is this:
```rust
use std::ops::Add;
fn foo<T: Add<Output=()>>(x: T) {
x + x;
}
fn main() {}
```
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `x`
--> binop.rs:4:9
|
3 | fn foo<T: Add<Output=()>>(x: T) {
| - move occurs because `x` has type `T`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
4 | x + x;
| ----^
| | |
| | value used here after move
| `x` moved due to usage in operator
|
note: calling this operator moves the left-hand side
help: consider further restricting this bound
|
3 | fn foo<T: Add<Output=()> + Copy>(x: T) {
| ^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
```
where, again, the note is supposed to point somewhere but doesn't. I have fixed this by checking whether the corresponding source code is actually available before emitting the note.
Add proc_macro::Span::{before, after}.
This adds `proc_macro::Span::before()` and `proc_macro::Span::after()` to get a zero width span at the start or end of the span.
These are equivalent to rustc's `Span::shrink_to_lo()` and `Span::shrink_to_hi()` but with a less cryptic name. They are useful when generating diagnostlics like "missing \<thing\> after \<thing\>".
E.g.
```rust
syn::Error::new(ident.span().after(), "missing `:` after field name").into_compile_error()
```
Ignore derived Clone and Debug implementations during dead code analysis
This pull request fixes#84647. Derived implementations of `Clone` and `Debug` always trivially read all fields, so "field is never read" dead code warnings are never triggered. Arguably, though, a user most likely will only be interested in whether _their_ code ever reads those fields, which is the behavior I have implemented here.
Note that implementations of `Clone` and `Debug` are only ignored if they are `#[derive(...)]`d; a custom `impl Clone/Debug for ...` will still be analyzed normally (i.e. if a custom `Clone` implementation uses all fields of the struct, this will continue to suppress dead code warnings about unused fields); this seemed like the least intrusive change to me (although it would be easy to change — just drop the `&& [impl_]item.span.in_derive_expansion()` in the if conditions).
The only thing that I am slightly unsure about is that in #84647, `@matklad` said
> Doesn't seem easy to fix though :(
However, it _was_ pretty straightforward to fix, so did I perhaps overlook something obvious? `@matklad,` could you weigh in on this?
