coverage: Overhaul validation of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute
This PR makes sweeping changes to how the (currently-unstable) coverage attribute is validated:
- Multiple coverage attributes on the same item/expression are now treated as an error.
- The attribute must always be `#[coverage(off)]` or `#[coverage(on)]`, and the error messages for this are more consistent.
- A trailing comma is still allowed after off/on, since that's part of the normal attribute syntax.
- Some places that silently ignored a coverage attribute now produce an error instead.
- These cases were all clearly bugs.
- Some places that ignored a coverage attribute (with a warning) now produce an error instead.
- These were originally added as lints, but I don't think it makes much sense to knowingly allow new attributes to be used in meaningless places.
- Some of these errors might soon disappear, if it's easy to extend recursive coverage attributes to things like modules and impl blocks.
---
One of the goals of this PR is to lay a more solid foundation for making the coverage attribute recursive, so that it applies to all nested functions/closures instead of just the one it is directly attached to.
Fixes#126658.
This PR incorporates #126659, which adds more tests for validation of the coverage attribute.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
Show notice about "never used" of Debug for enum
Close#123068
If an ADT implements `Debug` trait and it is not used, the compiler says a note that indicates intentionally ignored during dead code analysis as [this note](2207179a59/tests/ui/lint/dead-code/unused-variant.stderr (L9)).
However this node is not shown for variants that have fields in enum. This PR fixes to show the note.
Suggest removing unused tuple fields if they are the last fields
Fixes#124556
We now check if dead/unused fields are the last fields of the tuple and suggest their removal instead of suggesting them to be changed to `()`.
Add pub struct with allow(dead_code) into worklist
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Fixes#126289
Detect pub structs never constructed even though they impl pub trait with assoc constants
Extend dead code analysis to impl items of pub assoc constants.
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
Detect pub structs never constructed and unused associated constants
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Lints never constructed public structs.
If we don't provide public methods to construct public structs with private fields, and don't construct them in the local crate. They would be never constructed. So that we can detect such public structs.
---
Update:
Also lints unused associated constants in traits.
Parse unsafe attributes
Initial parse implementation for #123757
This is the initial work to parse unsafe attributes, which is represented as an extra `unsafety` field in `MetaItem` and `AttrItem`. There's two areas in the code where it appears that parsing is done manually and not using the parser stuff, and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to thread the change there.
Rename HIR `TypeBinding` to `AssocItemConstraint` and related cleanup
Rename `hir::TypeBinding` and `ast::AssocConstraint` to `AssocItemConstraint` and update all items and locals using the old terminology.
Motivation: The terminology *type binding* is extremely outdated. "Type bindings" not only include constraints on associated *types* but also on associated *constants* (feature `associated_const_equality`) and on RPITITs of associated *functions* (feature `return_type_notation`). Hence the word *item* in the new name. Furthermore, the word *binding* commonly refers to a mapping from a binder/identifier to a "value" for some definition of "value". Its use in "type binding" made sense when equality constraints (e.g., `AssocTy = Ty`) were the only kind of associated item constraint. Nowadays however, we also have *associated type bounds* (e.g., `AssocTy: Bound`) for which the term *binding* doesn't make sense.
---
Old terminology (HIR, rustdoc):
```
`TypeBinding`: (associated) type binding
├── `Constraint`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: (associated) equality constraint (?)
├── `Ty`: (associated) type binding
└── `Const`: associated const equality (constraint)
```
Old terminology (AST, abbrev.):
```
`AssocConstraint`
├── `Bound`
└── `Equality`
├── `Ty`
└── `Const`
```
New terminology (AST, HIR, rustdoc):
```
`AssocItemConstraint`: associated item constraint
├── `Bound`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: associated item equality constraint OR associated item binding (for short)
├── `Ty`: associated type equality constraint OR associated type binding (for short)
└── `Const`: associated const equality constraint OR associated const binding (for short)
```
r? compiler-errors
Remove more `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing`
Because explicit importing of macros via use items is nicer (more standard and readable) than implicit importing via `#[macro_use]`. Continuing the work from #124511 and #124914.
r? `@jackh726`
Fix OutsideLoop's error suggestion: adding label `'block` for `if` block.
For OutsideLoop we should not suggest add `'block` label in `if` block, or we wiil get another err: block label not supported here.
fixes#123261
Move `#[do_not_recommend]` to the `#[diagnostic]` namespace
This commit moves the `#[do_not_recommend]` attribute to the `#[diagnostic]` namespace. It still requires
`#![feature(do_not_recommend)]` to work.
r? `@compiler-errors`
reachable computation: extend explanation of what this does, and why
Follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122769. I had the time to think about this some more, in particular in the context of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119214, so I felt it was worth extending these comments some more.
I also gave up on the context of "externally reachable" as it is not called that way anywhere else in the compiler.
Cc `@tmiasko` `@saethlin`
