coverage: Add UI tests for values accepted by `-Cinstrument-coverage`
I wanted to clean up the code in `parse_instrument_coverage`, but it occurred to me that we currently don't have any UI tests for the various stable and unstable values supported by this flag.
---
Normally it might be overkill to individually test all the different variants of `on`/`off`, but in this case the parsing of those values is mixed in with some other custom code, so I think it's worthwhile being thorough.
Location-insensitive polonius: consider a loan escaping if an SCC has member constraints applied only
The location-insensitive analysis considered loans to escape if there were member constraints, which makes *some* sense for scopes and matches the scopes that NLL computes on all the tests.
However, polonius and NLLs differ on the fuzzed case #116657, where an SCC has member constraints but no applied ones (and is kinda surprising). The existing UI tests with member constraints impacting scopes all have some constraint applied.
This PR changes the location-insensitive analysis to consider a loan to escape if there are applied member constraints, and for extra paranoia/insurance via fuzzing and crater: actually checks the constraint's min choice is indeed a universal region as we expect. (This could be turned into a `debug_assert` and early return as a slight optimization after these periods of verification)
The 4 UI tests where member constraints are meaningful for computing scopes still pass obviously, and this also fixes#116657.
r? `@matthewjasper`
Avoid a `track_errors` by bubbling up most errors from `check_well_formed`
I believe `track_errors` is mostly papering over issues that a sufficiently convoluted query graph can hit. I made this change, while the actual change I want to do is to stop bailing out early on errors, and instead use this new `ErrorGuaranteed` to invoke `check_well_formed` for individual items before doing all the `typeck` logic on them.
This works towards resolving https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97477 and various other ICEs, as well as allowing us to use parallel rustc more (which is currently rather limited/bottlenecked due to the very sequential nature in which we do `rustc_hir_analysis::check_crate`)
cc `@SparrowLii` `@Zoxc` for the new `try_par_for_each_in` function
Mention the syntax for `use` on `mod foo;` if `foo` doesn't exist
Newcomers might get confused that `mod` is the only way of defining scopes, and that it can be used as if it were `use`.
Fix#69492.
fix spans for removing `.await` on `for` expressions
We need to use a span with the outer syntax context of a desugared `for` expression to join it with the `.await` span.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117014
Lint `non_exhaustive_omitted_patterns` by columns
This is a rework of the `non_exhaustive_omitted_patterns` lint to make it more consistent. The intent of the lint is to help consumers of `non_exhaustive` enums ensure they stay up-to-date with all upstream variants. This rewrite fixes two cases we didn't handle well before:
First, because of details of exhaustiveness checking, the following wouldn't lint `Enum::C` as missing:
```rust
match Some(x) {
Some(Enum::A) => {}
Some(Enum::B) => {}
_ => {}
}
```
Second, because of the fundamental workings of exhaustiveness checking, the following would treat the `true` and `false` cases separately and thus lint about missing variants:
```rust
match (true, x) {
(true, Enum::A) => {}
(true, Enum::B) => {}
(false, Enum::C) => {}
_ => {}
}
```
Moreover, it would correctly not lint in the case where the pair is flipped, because of asymmetry in how exhaustiveness checking proceeds.
A drawback is that it no longer makes sense to set the lint level per-arm. This will silently break the lint for current users of it (but it's behind a feature gate so that's ok).
The new approach is now independent of the exhaustiveness algorithm; it's a separate pass that looks at patterns column by column. This is another of the motivations for this: I'm glad to move it out of the algorithm, it was akward there.
This PR is almost identical to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111651. cc `@eholk` who reviewed it at the time. Compared to then, I'm more confident this is the right approach.
Point at assoc fn definition on type param divergence
When the number of type parameters in the associated function of an impl and its trait differ, we now *always* point at the trait one, even if it comes from a foreign crate. When it is local, we point at the specific params, when it is foreign, we point at the whole associated item.
Fix#69944.
Mention `into_iter` on borrow errors suggestions when appropriate
If we encounter a borrow error on `vec![1, 2, 3].iter()`, suggest `into_iter`.
Fix#68445.
Typo suggestion to change bindings with leading underscore
When encountering a binding that isn't found but has a typo suggestion for a binding with a leading underscore, suggest changing the binding definition instead of the use place.
Fix#60164.
When the number of type parameters in the associated function of an impl
and its trait differ, we now *always* point at the trait one, even if it
comes from a foreign crate. When it is local, we point at the specific
params, when it is foreign, we point at the whole associated item.
Fix#69944.
When encountering a binding that isn't found but has a typo suggestion
for a binding with a leading underscore, suggest changing the binding
definition instead of the use place.
Fix#60164.
Move where doc comment meant as comment check
The new place makes more sense and covers more cases beyond individual statements.
```
error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator, found doc comment `//!foo
--> $DIR/doc-comment-in-stmt.rs:25:22
|
LL | let y = x.max(1) //!foo
| ^^^^^^ expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator
|
help: add a space before `!` to write a regular comment
|
LL | let y = x.max(1) // !foo
| +
```
Fix#65329.
Add a test showing failing closure signature inference in new solver
Been thinking a bit about how to make this test pass... but we don't actually have any good tests exercising this behavior in the suite.
r? lcnr
The new place makes more sense and covers more cases beyond individual
statements.
```
error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator, found doc comment `//!foo
--> $DIR/doc-comment-in-stmt.rs:25:22
|
LL | let y = x.max(1) //!foo
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator
|
help: add a space before `!` to write a regular comment
|
LL | let y = x.max(1) // !foo
| +
```
Fix#65329.
Fix duplicate labels emitted in `render_multispan_macro_backtrace()`
This PR replaces the `Vec` used to store labels with an `FxIndexSet` in order to eliminate duplicates
Fixes#116836
Implement rustc part of RFC 3127 trim-paths
This PR implements (or at least tries to) [RFC 3127 trim-paths](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111540), the rustc part. That is `-Zremap-path-scope` with all of it's components/scopes.
`@rustbot` label: +F-trim-paths
Don't ICE when encountering unresolved regions in `fully_resolve`
We can encounter unresolved regions due to unconstrained impl lifetime arguments because `collect_return_position_impl_trait_in_trait_tys` runs before WF actually checks that the impl is well-formed.
Fixes#116525
