Parse unnamed fields and anonymous structs or unions (no-recovery)
It is part of #114782 which implements #49804. Only parse anonymous structs or unions in struct field definition positions.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Anonymous structs or unions are only allowed in struct field
definitions.
Co-authored-by: carbotaniuman <41451839+carbotaniuman@users.noreply.github.com>
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #111741 (Use `ObligationCtxt` in custom type ops)
- #111840 (Expose more information in `get_body_with_borrowck_facts`)
- #111876 (Roll compiler_builtins to 0.1.92)
- #111912 (Use `Option::is_some_and` and `Result::is_ok_and` in the compiler )
- #111915 (libtest: Improve error when missing `-Zunstable-options`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Implement negative bounds for internal testing purposes
Implements partial support the `!` negative polarity on trait bounds. This is incomplete, but should allow us to at least be able to play with the feature.
Not even gonna consider them as a public-facing feature, but I'm implementing them because would've been nice to have in UI tests, for example in #110671.
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
Add `rustc_fluent_macro` to decouple fluent from `rustc_macros`
Fluent, with all the icu4x it brings in, takes quite some time to compile. `fluent_messages!` is only needed in further downstream rustc crates, but is blocking more upstream crates like `rustc_index`. By splitting it out, we allow `rustc_macros` to be compiled earlier, which speeds up `x check compiler` by about 5 seconds (and even more after the needless dependency on `serde_json` is removed from `rustc_data_structures`).
Fluent, with all the icu4x it brings in, takes quite some time to
compile. `fluent_messages!` is only needed in further downstream rustc
crates, but is blocking more upstream crates like `rustc_index`. By
splitting it out, we allow `rustc_macros` to be compiled earlier, which
speeds up `x check compiler` by about 5 seconds (and even more after the
needless dependency on `serde_json` is removed from
`rustc_data_structures`).
Split out a separate feature gate for impl trait in associated types
in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107645 it was decided that we'll take a new route for type alias impl trait. The exact route isn't clear yet, so while I'm working on implementing some of these proposed changes (e.g. in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110010) to be able to experiment with them, I will also work on stabilizing another sugar version first: impl trait in associated types. Similarly I'll look into creating feature gates for impl trait in const/static types.
This PR does nothing but split the feature gate, so that you need to enable a different feature gate for
```rust
impl Trait for Type {
type Assoc = impl SomeTrait;
}
```
than what you need for `type Foo = impl SomeTrait;`
Remove `..` from return type notation
`@nikomatsakis` and I decided that using `..` in the return-type notation syntax is probably overkill.
r? `@eholk` since you reviewed the last one
Since this is piggybacking now totally off of a pre-existing syntax (parenthesized generics), let me know if you need any explanation of the logic here, since it's a bit more complicated now.
Update `error [E0449]: unnecessary visibility qualifier` to be more clear
This updates the error message `error[E0449]: unnecessary visibility qualifier` by clearly indicating that visibility qualifiers already inherit their visibility from a parent item. The error message previously implied that the qualifiers were permitted, which is not the case anymore.
Resolves#109822.
Emit feature error for parenthesized generics in associated type bounds
We don't actually do AST->HIR lowering with some `-Zunpretty` flags, so it's not correct to just delay a bug instead of emitting a feature error.
Some diagnostics regressed because of the new errors, but oh well. 🤷Fixes#109898
