Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
Detect unused structs which derived Default
<!--
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#98871
Expand the primary span of E0277 when the immediate unmet bound is not what the user wrote:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `i32: Bar` is not satisfied
--> f100.rs:6:6
|
6 | <i32 as Foo>::foo();
| ^^^ the trait `Bar` is not implemented for `i32`, which is required by `i32: Foo`
|
help: this trait has no implementations, consider adding one
--> f100.rs:2:1
|
2 | trait Bar {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
note: required for `i32` to implement `Foo`
--> f100.rs:3:14
|
3 | impl<T: Bar> Foo for T {}
| --- ^^^ ^
| |
| unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
```
Fix#40120.
Generate `match *self {}` instead of `unsafe { core::intrinsics::unreachable() }`.
This is:
1. safe
2. stable
for the benefit of everyone looking at these derived impls through `cargo expand`.
Both expansions compile to the same code at all optimization levels (including `0`).
Because most of the other derived functions are inlined: `clone`,
`default`, `eq`, `partial_cmp`, `cmp`. The exception is `fmt`, but it
tends to not be on hot paths as much.
If you do `derive(PartialEq)` on a packed struct, the output shown by
`-Zunpretty=expanded` includes expressions like this:
```
{ self.x } == { other.x }
```
This is invalid syntax. This doesn't break compilation, because the AST
nodes are constructed within the compiler. But it does mean anyone using
`-Zunpretty=expanded` output as a guide for hand-written impls could get
a nasty surprise.
This commit fixes things by instead using this form:
```
({ self.x }) == ({ other.x })
```
Currently, deriving on packed structs has some non-trivial limitations,
related to the fact that taking references on unaligned fields is UB.
The current approach to field accesses in derived code:
- Normal case: `&self.0`
- In a packed struct that derives `Copy`: `&{self.0}`
- In a packed struct that doesn't derive `Copy`: `&self.0`
Plus, we disallow deriving any builtin traits other than `Default` for any
packed generic type, because it's possible that there might be
misaligned fields. This is a fairly broad restriction.
Plus, we disallow deriving any builtin traits other than `Default` for most
packed types that don't derive `Copy`. (The exceptions are those where the
alignments inherently satisfy the packing, e.g. in a type with
`repr(packed(N))` where all the fields have alignments of `N` or less
anyway. Such types are pretty strange, because the `packed` attribute is
not having any effect.)
This commit introduces a new, simpler approach to field accesses:
- Normal case: `&self.0`
- In a packed struct: `&{self.0}`
In the latter case, this requires that all fields impl `Copy`, which is
a new restriction. This means that the following example compiles under
the old approach and doesn't compile under the new approach.
```
#[derive(Debug)]
struct NonCopy(u8);
#[derive(Debug)
#[repr(packed)]
struct MyType(NonCopy);
```
(Note that the old approach's support for cases like this was brittle.
Changing the `u8` to a `u16` would be enough to stop it working. So not
much capability is lost here.)
However, the other constraints from the old rules are removed. We can now
derive builtin traits for packed generic structs like this:
```
trait Trait { type A; }
#[derive(Hash)]
#[repr(packed)]
pub struct Foo<T: Trait>(T, T::A);
```
To allow this, we add a `T: Copy` bound in the derived impl and a `T::A:
Copy` bound in where clauses. So `T` and `T::A` must impl `Copy`.
We can now also derive builtin traits for packed structs that don't derive
`Copy`, so long as the fields impl `Copy`:
```
#[derive(Hash)]
#[repr(packed)]
pub struct Foo(u32);
```
This includes types that hand-impl `Copy` rather than deriving it, such as the
following, that show up in winapi-0.2:
```
#[derive(Clone)]
#[repr(packed)]
struct MyType(i32);
impl Copy for MyType {}
```
The new approach is simpler to understand and implement, and it avoids
the need for the `unsafe_derive_on_repr_packed` check.
One exception is required for backwards-compatibility: we allow `[u8]`
fields for now. There is a new lint for this,
`byte_slice_in_packed_struct_with_derive`.
Special-case deriving `PartialOrd` for enums with dataless variants
I was able to get slightly better codegen by flipping the derived `PartialOrd` logic for two-variant enums. I also tried to document the implementation of the derive macro to make the special-case logic a little clearer.
```rs
#[derive(PartialEq, PartialOrd)]
pub enum A<T> {
A,
B(T)
}
```
```diff
impl<T: ::core::cmp::PartialOrd> ::core::cmp::PartialOrd for A<T> {
#[inline]
fn partial_cmp(
&self,
other: &A<T>,
) -> ::core::option::Option<::core::cmp::Ordering> {
let __self_tag = ::core::intrinsics::discriminant_value(self);
let __arg1_tag = ::core::intrinsics::discriminant_value(other);
- match ::core::cmp::PartialOrd::partial_cmp(&__self_tag, &__arg1_tag) {
- ::core::option::Option::Some(::core::cmp::Ordering::Equal) => {
- match (self, other) {
- (A::B(__self_0), A::B(__arg1_0)) => {
- ::core::cmp::PartialOrd::partial_cmp(__self_0, __arg1_0)
- }
- _ => ::core::option::Option::Some(::core::cmp::Ordering::Equal),
- }
+ match (self, other) {
+ (A::B(__self_0), A::B(__arg1_0)) => {
+ ::core::cmp::PartialOrd::partial_cmp(__self_0, __arg1_0)
}
- cmp => cmp,
+ _ => ::core::cmp::PartialOrd::partial_cmp(&__self_tag, &__arg1_tag),
}
}
}
```
Godbolt: [Current](https://godbolt.org/z/GYjEzG1T8), [New](https://godbolt.org/z/GoK78qx15)
I'm not sure how common a case comparing two enums like this (such as `Option`) is, and if it's worth the slowdown of adding a special case to the derive. If it causes overall regressions it might be worth just manually implementing this for `Option`.
