Rewrite exhaustiveness in one pass
This is at least my 4th attempt at this in as many years x) Previous attempts were all too complicated or too slow. But we're finally here!
The previous version of the exhaustiveness algorithm computed reachability for each arm then exhaustiveness of the whole match. Since each of these steps does roughly the same things, this rewrites the algorithm to do them all in one go. I also think this makes things much simpler.
I also rewrote the documentation of the algorithm in depth. Hopefully it's up-to-date and easier to follow now. Plz comment if anything's unclear.
r? `@oli-obk` I think you're one of the rare other people to understand the exhaustiveness algorithm?
cc `@varkor` I know you're not active anymore, but if you feel like having a look you might enjoy this :D
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79307
Don't ICE when encountering placeholders in implied bounds computation
I *could* fix this the right way, though I don't really want to think about the implications of the change. This should have minimal side-effects.
r? `@aliemjay`
Fixes#118286
Fixes error count display is different when there's only one error left
Supersedes #114759
### What did I do?
I did the small change in `rustc_errors` by hand. Then I did the other changes in `/compiler` by hand, those were just find replace on `*.rs` in the workspace. The changes in run-make are find replace for `run-make` in the workspace.
All other changes are blessed using `x test TEST --bless`. I blessed the tests that were blessed in #114759.
### how to review this nightmare
ping bors with an `r+`. You should check that my logic is sound and maybe quickly scroll through the diff, but fully verifying it seems fairly hard to impossible. I did my best to do this correctly.
Thank you `@adrianEffe` for bringing this up and your initial implementation.
cc `@flip1995,` you said you want to do a subtree sync asap
cc `@RalfJung` maybe you want to do a quick subtree sync afterwards as well for Miri
r? `@WaffleLapkin`
Add `Span` to `TraitBoundModifier`
This improves diagnostics for the message "`~const` is not allowed here", and also fixes the span that we use when desugaring `~const Tr` into `Tr<host>` in effects desugaring.
feat: make `let_binding_suggestion` more reasonable
This is my first PR for rustc, which trying to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117894, I am not familiar with some internal api so maybe some modification here isn't the way to go, appreciated for any review suggestion.
Rework supertrait lint once again
I accidentally pushed the wrong commits because I totally didn't check I was on the right computer when updating #118026.
Sorry, this should address all the nits in #118026.
r? lcnr
improve tool-only help for multiple `#[default]` variants
When defining an enum with multiple `#[default]` variants, we emit a tool-only suggestion for every `#[default]`ed variant to remove all other `#[default]`s. This PR improves the suggestion to correctly handle the cases where one variant has multiple `#[default]`s and where different `#[default]`s have the same span due to macro expansions.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118119
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #118012 (Add support for global allocation in smir)
- #118013 (Enable Rust to use the EHCont security feature of Windows)
- #118100 (Enable profiler in dist-powerpc64-linux)
- #118142 (Tighten up link attributes for llvm-wrapper bindings)
- #118147 (Fix some unnecessary casts)
- #118161 (Allow defining opaques in `check_coroutine_obligations`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Allow defining opaques in `check_coroutine_obligations`
In the new trait solver, when an obligation stalls on an unresolved coroutine witness, we will stash away the *root* obligation, even if the stalled obligation is only a distant descendent of the root obligation, since the new solver is purely recursive.
This means that we may need to reprocess alias-relate obligations (and others) which may define opaque types in the new solver. Currently, we use the coroutine's def id as the defining anchor in `check_coroutine_obligations`, which will allow defining no opaque types, resulting in errors like:
```
error[E0271]: type mismatch resolving `{coroutine@<source>:6:5: 6:17} <: impl Clone`
--> <source>:6:5
|
6 | / move |_: ()| {
7 | | let () = yield ();
8 | | }
| |_____^ types differ
```
So this PR fixes the defining anchor and does the same trick as `check_opaque_well_formed`, where we manually compare opaques that were defined against their hidden types to make sure they weren't defined differently when processing these stalled coroutine obligations.
r? `@lcnr` cc `@cjgillot`
Add allow-by-default lint for unit bindings
### Example
```rust
#![warn(unit_bindings)]
macro_rules! owo {
() => {
let whats_this = ();
}
}
fn main() {
// No warning if user explicitly wrote `()` on either side.
let expr = ();
let () = expr;
let _ = ();
let _ = expr; //~ WARN binding has unit type
let pat = expr; //~ WARN binding has unit type
let _pat = expr; //~ WARN binding has unit type
// No warning for let bindings with unit type in macro expansions.
owo!();
// No warning if user explicitly annotates the unit type on the binding.
let pat: () = expr;
}
```
outputs
```
warning: binding has unit type `()`
--> $DIR/unit-bindings.rs:17:5
|
LL | let _ = expr;
| ^^^^-^^^^^^^^
| |
| this pattern is inferred to be the unit type `()`
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> $DIR/unit-bindings.rs:3:9
|
LL | #![warn(unit_bindings)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
warning: binding has unit type `()`
--> $DIR/unit-bindings.rs:18:5
|
LL | let pat = expr;
| ^^^^---^^^^^^^^
| |
| this pattern is inferred to be the unit type `()`
warning: binding has unit type `()`
--> $DIR/unit-bindings.rs:19:5
|
LL | let _pat = expr;
| ^^^^----^^^^^^^^
| |
| this pattern is inferred to be the unit type `()`
warning: 3 warnings emitted
```
This lint is not triggered if any of the following conditions are met:
- The user explicitly annotates the binding with the `()` type.
- The binding is from a macro expansion.
- The user explicitly wrote `let () = init;`
- The user explicitly wrote `let pat = ();`. This is allowed for local lifetimes.
### Known Issue
It is known that this lint can trigger on some proc-macro generated code whose span returns false for `Span::from_expansion` because e.g. the proc-macro simply forwards user code spans, and otherwise don't have distinguishing syntax context compared to non-macro-generated code. For those kind of proc-macros, I believe the correct way to fix them is to instead emit identifers with span like `Span::mixed_site().located_at(user_span)`.
Closes#71432.
Remove `feature` from the list of well known check-cfg name
This PR removes `feature` from the list of well known check-cfg.
This is done for multiple reasons:
- Cargo is the source of truth, rustc shouldn't have any knowledge of it
- It creates a conflict between Cargo and rustc when there are no features defined.
In this case Cargo won't pass any `--check-cfg` for `feature` since no feature will ever be passed, but rustc by having in it's list adds a implicit `cfg(feature, values(any()))` which is completely wrong. Having any cfg `feature` is unexpected not allow any `feature` value.
While doing this, I took the opportunity to specialise the diagnostic a bit for the case above.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Don't ICE when ambiguity is found when selecting `Index` implementation in typeck
Fixes#118111
The problem here is when we're manually "selecting" an impl for `base_ty: Index<?0>`, we don't consider placeholder region errors (leak check) or ambiguous predicates. Those can lead to us not actually emitting any fulfillment errors on line 3131.
Fix early param lifetimes in generic_const_exprs
In cases like below, we never actually be able to capture region name for two reasons, first `'static` becomes anonymous lifetime and second we never capture region if it doesn't have a name so this results in ICE.
```
struct DataWrapper<'static> {
data: &'a [u8; Self::SIZE],
}
impl DataWrapper<'a> {
```
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118021
Remove `--check-cfg` checking of command line `--cfg` args
Back in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100574 we added to the `unexpected_cfgs` lint the checking of `--cfg` CLI arguments and emitted unexpected names and values for them.
The implementation works as expected, but it's usability in particular when using it in combination with Cargo+`RUSTFLAGS` as people who set `RUSTFLAGS=--cfg=tokio_unstable` (or whatever) have `unexpected_cfgs` warnings on all of their crates is debatable. ~~To fix this issue this PR proposes that we split the CLI argument checking into it's own separate allow-by-default lint: `unexpected_cli_cfgs`.~~
~~This has the advantage of letting people who want CLI warnings have them (although not by default anymore), while still linting on every unexpected cfg name and values in the code.~~
After some discussion with the Cargo team ([Zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/246057-t-cargo/topic/check-cfg.20and.20RUSTFLAGS.20interaction)) and member of the compiler team (see below), I propose that we follow the suggestion from `@epage:` never check `--cfg` arguments, but still reserve us the possibility to do it later.
We would still lint on unexpected cfgs found in the source code no matter the `--cfg` args passed. This mean reverting https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100574 but NOT https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99519.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Add `$message_type` field to distinguish json diagnostic outputs
Currently the json-formatted outputs have no way to unambiguously determine which kind of message is being output. A consumer can look for specific fields in the json object (eg "message"), but there's no guarantee that in future some other kind of output will have a field of the same name.
This PR adds a `"type"` field to add json outputs which can be used to unambiguously determine which kind of output it is. The mapping is:
`diagnostic`: regular compiler diagnostics
`artifact`: artifact notifications
`future_incompat`: Future incompatibility report
`unused_extern`: Unused crate warnings/errors
This matches the "internally tagged" representation for serde enums.
Don't consider regions in `deref_into_dyn_supertrait` lint
I actually wonder if we should just warn on *any* deref impl with a target type that matches a supertrait by *def-id*.
cc #89460
r? types
Typeck break expr even if break is illegal
Fixes#117821
We were returning immediately when encountering an illegal break. However, this caused problems later when the expr that the break was returning was evaluated during writeback. So now we don't return and instead simply set tainted by error. This lets typeck of break expr to occur even though we've encountered an illegal break.
Don't require intercrate mode for negative coherence
Negative coherence needs to be *sound*, but does not need to be *complete*, since it's looking for the *existence* of a negative goal, not the non-existence of a positive goal.
This removes some trivial and annoying ambiguities when a negative impl has region constraints.
r? lcnr idk if this needs an fcp but if it does, pls kick it off
