Implement edition 2024 match ergonomics restrictions
This implements the minimalest version of [match ergonomics for edition 2024](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3627-match-ergonomics-2024.html). This minimal version makes it an error to ever reset the default binding mode. The implemented proposal is described precisely [here](https://hackmd.io/zUqs2ISNQ0Wrnxsa9nhD0Q#RFC-3627-nano), where it is called "RFC 3627-nano".
Rules:
- Rule 1C: When the DBM (default binding mode) is not `move` (whether or not behind a reference), writing `mut`, `ref`, or `ref mut` on a binding is an error.
- Rule 2C: Reference patterns can only match against references in the scrutinee when the DBM is `move`.
This minimal version is forward-compatible with the main proposals for match ergonomics 2024: [RFC3627](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3627-match-ergonomics-2024.html) itself, the alternative [rule 4-early variant](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3627-match-ergonomics-2024.html), and [others](https://hackmd.io/zUqs2ISNQ0Wrnxsa9nhD0Q). The idea is to give us more time to iron out a final proposal.
This includes a migration lint that desugars any offending pattern into one that doesn't make use of match ergonomics. Such patterns have identical meaning across editions.
This PR insta-stabilizes the proposed behavior onto edition 2024.
r? `@ghost`
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123076
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
- fix for divergence
- fix error message
- fix another cranelift test
- fix some cranelift things
- don't set the NORETURN option for naked asm
- fix use of naked_asm! in doc comment
- fix use of naked_asm! in run-make test
- use `span_bug` in unreachable branch
Replace calls to `ty::Const::{try_}eval` in mir build/pattern analysis
We normalize consts in writeback: #130645. This means that consts are gonna be as normalized as they're ever gonna get in MIR building and pattern analysis. Therefore we can just use `try_to_target_usize` rather than calling `eval_target_usize`.
Regarding the `.expect` calls, I'm not totally certain whether they're correct given rigid unevaluated consts. But this PR shouldn't make *more* ICEs occur; we may have to squash these ICEs when mGCE comes around, tho 😺
Begin experimental support for pin reborrowing
This commit adds basic support for reborrowing `Pin` types in argument position. At the moment it only supports reborrowing `Pin<&mut T>` as `Pin<&mut T>` by inserting a call to `Pin::as_mut()`, and only in argument position (not as the receiver in a method call).
This PR makes the following example compile:
```rust
#![feature(pin_ergonomics)]
fn foo(_: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
}
fn bar(mut x: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
foo(x);
foo(x);
}
```
Previously, you would have had to write `bar` as:
```rust
fn bar(mut x: Pin<&mut Foo>) {
foo(x.as_mut());
foo(x);
}
```
Tracking:
- #130494
r? `@compiler-errors`
Generating a call to `as_mut()` let to more restrictive borrows than
what reborrowing usually gives us. Instead, we change the desugaring to
reborrow the pin internals directly which makes things more expressive.
Never patterns constitute a read for unsafety
This code is otherwise unsound if we don't emit an unsafety error here. Noticed when fixing #130528, but it's totally unrelated.
r? `@Nadrieril`
This commit adds basic support for reborrowing `Pin` types in argument
position. At the moment it only supports reborrowing `Pin<&mut T>` as
`Pin<&mut T>` by inserting a call to `Pin::as_mut()`, and only in
argument position (not as the receiver in a method call).
- Replace non-standard names like 's, 'p, 'rg, 'ck, 'parent, 'this, and
'me with vanilla 'a. These are cases where the original name isn't
really any more informative than 'a.
- Replace names like 'cx, 'mir, and 'body with vanilla 'a when the lifetime
applies to multiple fields and so the original lifetime name isn't
really accurate.
- Put 'tcx last in lifetime lists, and 'a before 'b.
Rescope temp lifetime in if-let into IfElse with migration lint
Tracking issue #124085
This PR shortens the temporary lifetime to cover only the pattern matching and consequent branch of a `if let`.
At the expression location, means that the lifetime is shortened from previously the deepest enclosing block or statement in Edition 2021. This warrants an Edition change.
Coming with the Edition change, this patch also implements an edition lint to warn about the change and a safe rewrite suggestion to preserve the 2021 semantics in most cases.
Related to #103108.
Related crater runs: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129466.
Simplify some nested `if` statements
Applies some but not all instances of `clippy::collapsible_if`. Some ended up looking worse afterwards, though, so I left those out. Also applies instances of `clippy::collapsible_else_if`
Review with whitespace disabled please.
Use shorthand field initialization syntax more aggressively in the compiler
Caught these when cleaning up #129344 and decided to run clippy to find the rest
Use `bool` in favor of `Option<()>` for diagnostics
We originally only supported `Option<()>` for optional notes/labels, but we now support `bool`. Let's use that, since it usually leads to more readable code.
I'm not removing the support from the derive macro, though I guess we could error on it... 🤔
