rustc_span: Use correct edit distance start length for suggestions
Otherwise the suggestions can be off-base for non-ASCII identifiers. For example suggesting that `Ok` is a name similar to `读文`.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/72553.
Account for `!` arm in tail `match` expr
On functions with a default return type that influences the coerced type of `match` arms, check if the failing arm is actually of type `!`. If so, suggest changing the return type so the coercion against the prior arms is successful.
```
error[E0308]: `match` arms have incompatible types
--> $DIR/match-tail-expr-never-type-error.rs:9:13
|
LL | fn bar(a: bool) {
| - help: try adding a return type: `-> i32`
LL | / match a {
LL | | true => 1,
| | - this is found to be of type `{integer}`
LL | | false => {
LL | | never()
| | ^^^^^^^
| | |
| | expected integer, found `()`
| | this expression is of type `!`, but it get's coerced to `()` due to its surrounding expression
LL | | }
LL | | }
| |_____- `match` arms have incompatible types
```
Fix#24157.
Do not erase late bound regions when selecting inherent associated types
In the fix for #97156 we would want the following code:
```rust
#![feature(inherent_associated_types)]
#![allow(incomplete_features)]
struct Foo<T>(T);
impl Foo<fn(&'static ())> {
type Assoc = u32;
}
trait Other {}
impl Other for u32 {}
// FIXME(inherent_associated_types): Avoid emitting two diagnostics (they only differ in span).
// FIXME(inherent_associated_types): Enhancement: Spruce up the diagnostic by saying something like
// "implementation is not general enough" as is done for traits via
// `try_report_trait_placeholder_mismatch`.
fn bar(_: Foo<for<'a> fn(&'a ())>::Assoc) {}
//~^ ERROR mismatched types
//~| ERROR mismatched types
fn main() {}
```
to fail with ...
```
error[E0220]: associated type `Assoc` not found for `Foo<for<'a> fn(&'a ())>` in the current scope
--> tests/ui/associated-inherent-types/issue-109789.rs:18:36
|
4 | struct Foo<T>(T);
| ------------- associated item `Assoc` not found for this struct
...
18 | fn bar(_: Foo<for<'a> fn(&'a ())>::Assoc) {}
| ^^^^^ associated item not found in `Foo<for<'a> fn(&'a ())>`
|
= note: the associated type was found for
- `Foo<fn(&'static ())>`
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0220`.
```
This PR fixes the ICE we are currently getting "was a subtype of Foo<Binder(fn(&ReStatic ()), [])> during selection but now it is not"
Also fixes#112631
r? `@lcnr`
On functions with a default return type that influences the coerced type
of `match` arms, check if the failing arm is actually of type `!`. If
so, suggest changing the return type so the coercion against the prior
arms is successful.
```
error[E0308]: `match` arms have incompatible types
--> $DIR/match-tail-expr-never-type-error.rs:9:13
|
LL | fn bar(a: bool) {
| - help: try adding a return type: `-> i32`
LL | / match a {
LL | | true => 1,
| | - this is found to be of type `{integer}`
LL | | false => {
LL | | never()
| | ^^^^^^^
| | |
| | expected integer, found `()`
| | this expression is of type `!`, but it get's coerced to `()` due to its surrounding expression
LL | | }
LL | | }
| |_____- `match` arms have incompatible types
```
Fix#24157.
Suggest swapping the order of `ref` and `box`
It is not valid grammar to write `ref box <ident>` in patterns, but `box ref <ident>` is.
This patch adds a diagnostic to suggest swapping them, analogous to what we do for `mut let`.
Add `debug_assert_nounwind` and convert `assert_unsafe_precondition`
`assert_unsafe_precondition` checks non-CTFE-evaluable conditions in runtime and performs no-op in compile time, while many of its current usage can be checked during const eval.
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`
