Make regionck care about placeholders in outlives components
Currently, we don't consider a placeholder type `!T` to be a type component when it comes to processing type-outlives obligations. This means that they are essentially treated like unit values with no sub-components, and always outlive any region. This is problematic for `non_lifetime_binders`, and even more problematic for `with_negative_coherence`, since negative coherence uses placeholders as universals.
This PR adds `Component::Placeholder` which acts much like `Component::Param`. This currently causes a regression in some non-lifetime-binders tests because `for<T> T: 'static` doesn't imply itself when processing outlives obligations, so code like this will fail:
```
fn foo() where for<T> T: 'static {
foo() //~ fails
}
```
Since the where clause doesn't imply itself. This requires making the `MatchAgainstHigherRankedOutlives` relation smarter when it comes to binders.
r? types
Ignore but do not assume region obligations from unifying headers in negative coherence
Partly addresses a FIXME that was added in #112875. Just as we can throw away the nested trait/projection obligations from unifying two impl headers, we can also just throw away the region obligations too.
I removed part of the FIXME that was incorrect, namely:
> Given that the only region constraints we get are involving inference regions in the root, it shouldn't matter, but still sus.
This is not true when unifying `fn(A)` and `for<'b> fn(&'b B)` which ends up with placeholder region outlives from non-root universes. I'm pretty sure this is okay, though it would be nice if we were to use them as assumptions. See the `explicit` revision of the test I committed, which still fails.
Fixes#117986
r? lcnr, feel free to reassign tho.
Recover `dyn` and `impl` after `for<...>`
Recover `dyn` and `impl` after `for<...>` in types. Reuses the logic for parsing bare trait objects, so it doesn't fix cases like `for<'a> dyn Trait + dyn Trait` or anything, but that seems somewhat of a different issue.
Parsing recovery logic is a bit involved, but I couldn't find a way to simplify it.
Fixes#117882
interpret: simplify handling of shifts by no longer trying to handle signed and unsigned shift amounts in the same branch
While we're at it, also update comments in codegen and MIR building related to shifts, and fix the overflow error printed by Miri on negative shift amounts.
When encountering struct fn call literal with private fields, suggest all builders
When encountering code like `Box(42)`, suggest `Box::new(42)` and *all* other associated functions that return `-> Box<T>`.
Add a way to give pre-sorted suggestions.
Ensure sanity of all computed ABIs
This moves the ABI sanity assertions from the codegen backend to the ABI computation logic. Sadly, due to past mistakes, we [have to](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117351#issuecomment-1788495503) be able to compute a sane ABI for nonsensical function types like `extern "C" fn(str) -> str`. So to make the sanity check pass we first need to make all ABI adjustment deal with unsized types... and we have no shared infrastructure for those adjustments, so that's a bunch of copy-paste. At least we have assertions failing loudly when one accidentally sets a different mode for an unsized argument.
To achieve this, this re-lands the parts of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80594 that got reverted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81388. To avoid breaking wasm ABI again, that ABI now explicitly opts-in to the (wrong, broken) ABI that we currently keep for backwards compatibility. That's still better than having *every* ABI use the wrong broken default!
Cc `@bjorn3`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115845
Lint pinned `#[must_use]` pointers (in particular, `Box<T>` where `T` is `#[must_use]`) in `unused_must_use`.
Fixes: #111458
This is motivated by a common async/await pattern:
```rs
fn foo() -> Pin<Box<dyn Future<Output = i32>>> {
Box::pin(async { 42 })
}
// call `foo`, but forget to await the result
foo();
```
Unlike with `async fn` or return position `impl Future`, this does not currently warn the user that the `Future` is unused.
To fix this, I've extended the `unused_must_use` lint to catch `Pin<P>`, where `P` must be used. In particular, this applies to `Pin<Box<T>>`, where `T` must be used. I'm not sure if there are other pointers where this applies, but I can't think of any situation the user wouldn't want to be warned.
Suggest field typo through derefs
Take into account implicit dereferences when suggesting fields.
```
error[E0609]: no field `longname` on type `Arc<S>`
--> $DIR/suggest-field-through-deref.rs:10:15
|
LL | let _ = x.longname;
| ^^^^^^^^ help: a field with a similar name exists: `long_name`
```
CC https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78374#issuecomment-719564114
When a local binding shadows a fn, point at fn def in call failure
When a local binding shadows a function that is then called, this local binding will cause an E0618 error. We now point not only at the binding definition, but also at the locally defined function of the same name.
```
error[E0618]: expected function, found `&str`
--> $DIR/issue-22468.rs:3:13
|
LL | let foo = "bar";
| --- `foo` has type `&str`
LL | let x = foo("baz");
| ^^^-------
| |
| call expression requires function
...
LL | fn foo(file: &str) -> bool {
| -------------------------- this function of the same name is available here, but it shadowed by the local binding of the same name
```
Fix#53841
Reenable effects in libcore
With #116670, #117531, and #117171, I think we would be comfortable with re-enabling the effects feature for more testing in libcore.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@fmease`
cc #110395
Add some additional warnings for duplicated diagnostic items
This commit adds warnings if a user supplies several diagnostic options where we can only apply one of them. We explicitly warn about ignored options here. In addition a small test for these warnings is added.
r? `@compiler-errors`
For now that's the last PR to improve the warnings generated by misused `#[diagnostic::on_unimplemented]` attributes. I'm not sure what needs to be done next to move this closer to stabilization.
When a local binding shadows a function that is then called, this local
binding will cause an E0618 error. We now point not only at the binding
definition, but also at the locally defined function of the same name.
```
error[E0618]: expected function, found `&str`
--> $DIR/issue-22468.rs:3:13
|
LL | let foo = "bar";
| --- `foo` has type `&str`
LL | let x = foo("baz");
| ^^^-------
| |
| call expression requires function
...
LL | fn foo(file: &str) -> bool {
| -------------------------- this function of the same name is avalable here, but it shadowed by the local binding of the same name
```
Fix#53841
When using existing fn as module, don't claim it doesn't exist
Tweak wording of module not found in resolve, when the name exists but belongs to a non-`mod` item.
Fix#81232.
Remove asmjs
Fulfills [MCP 668](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/668).
`asmjs-unknown-emscripten` does not work as-specified, and lacks essential upstream support for generating asm.js, so it should not exist at all.
More detail when expecting expression but encountering bad macro argument
On nested macro invocations where the same macro fragment changes fragment type from one to the next, point at the chain of invocations and at the macro fragment definition place, explaining that the change has occurred.
Fix#71039.
```
error: expected expression, found pattern `1 + 1`
--> $DIR/trace_faulty_macros.rs:49:37
|
LL | (let $p:pat = $e:expr) => {test!(($p,$e))};
| ------- -- this is interpreted as expression, but it is expected to be pattern
| |
| this macro fragment matcher is expression
...
LL | (($p:pat, $e:pat)) => {let $p = $e;};
| ------ ^^ expected expression
| |
| this macro fragment matcher is pattern
...
LL | test!(let x = 1+1);
| ------------------
| | |
| | this is expected to be expression
| in this macro invocation
|
= note: when forwarding a matched fragment to another macro-by-example, matchers in the second macro will see an opaque AST of the fragment type, not the underlying tokens
= note: this error originates in the macro `test` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
ignore implied bounds with placeholders
given the following code:
```rust
trait Trait {
type Ty<'a> where Self: 'a;
}
impl<T> Trait for T {
type Ty<'a> = () where Self: 'a;
}
struct Foo<T: Trait>(T)
where
for<'x> T::Ty<'x>: Sized;
```
when computing the implied bounds from `Foo<X>` we incorrectly get the bound `X: !x` from the normalization of ` for<'x> <X as Trait>::Ty::<'x>: Sized`. This is a a known bug! we shouldn't use the constraints that arise from normalization as implied bounds. See #109628.
Ignore these bounds for now. This should prevent later ICEs.
Fixes#112250Fixes#107409
new solver normalization improvements
cool beans
At the core of this PR is a `try_normalize_ty` which stops for rigid aliases by using `commit_if_ok`.
Reworks alias-relate to fully normalize both the lhs and rhs and then equate the resulting rigid (or inference) types. This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/68 by avoiding the exponential blowup. Also supersedes #116369 by only defining opaque types if the hidden type is rigid.
I removed the stability check in `EvalCtxt::evaluate_goal` due to https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/75. While I personally have opinions on how to fix it, that still requires further t-types/`@nikomatsakis` buy-in, so I removed that for now. Once we've decided on our approach there, we can revert this commit.
r? `@compiler-errors`
On resolve error of `[rest..]`, suggest `[rest @ ..]`
When writing a pattern to collect multiple entries of a slice in a single binding, it is easy to misremember or typo the appropriate syntax to do so, instead writing the experimental `X..` pattern syntax. When we encounter a resolve error because `X` isn't available, we suggest `X @ ..` as an alternative.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `rest` in this scope
--> $DIR/range-pattern-meant-to-be-slice-rest-pattern.rs:3:13
|
LL | [1, rest..] => println!("{rest:?}"),
| ^^^^ not found in this scope
|
help: if you meant to collect the rest of the slice in `rest`, use the at operator
|
LL | [1, rest @ ..] => println!("{rest:?}"),
| +
```
Fix#88404.
document ABI compatibility
I don't think we have any central place where we document our ABI compatibility rules, so let's create one. The `fn()` pointer type seems like a good place since ABI questions can only become relevant when invoking a function through a function pointer.
This will likely need T-lang FCP.
This commit adds warnings if a user supplies several diagnostic options
where we can only apply one of them. We explicitly warn about ignored
options here. In addition a small test for these warnings is added.
When writing a pattern to collect multiple entries of a slice in a
single binding, it is easy to misremember or typo the appropriate syntax
to do so, instead writing the experimental `X..` pattern syntax. When we
encounter a resolve error because `X` isn't available, we suggest
`X @ ..` as an alternative.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `rest` in this scope
--> $DIR/range-pattern-meant-to-be-slice-rest-pattern.rs:3:13
|
LL | [1, rest..] => println!("{rest:?}"),
| ^^^^ not found in this scope
|
help: if you meant to collect the rest of the slice in `rest`, use the at operator
|
LL | [1, rest @ ..] => println!("{rest:?}"),
| +
```
Fix#88404.
Better handle type errors involving `Self` literals
When encountering a type error involving a `Self` literal, point at the self type of the enclosing `impl` and suggest using the actual type name instead.
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> $DIR/struct-path-self-type-mismatch.rs:13:9
|
LL | impl<T> Foo<T> {
| - ------ this is the type of the `Self` literal
| |
| found type parameter
LL | fn new<U>(u: U) -> Foo<U> {
| - ------ expected `Foo<U>` because of return type
| |
| expected type parameter
LL | / Self {
LL | |
LL | | inner: u
LL | |
LL | | }
| |_________^ expected `Foo<U>`, found `Foo<T>`
|
= note: expected struct `Foo<U>`
found struct `Foo<T>`
= note: a type parameter was expected, but a different one was found; you might be missing a type parameter or trait bound
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch10-02-traits.html#traits-as-parameters
help: use the type name directly
|
LL | Foo::<U> {
| ~~~~~~~~
```
Fix#76086.
Take into account implicit dereferences when suggesting fields.
```
error[E0609]: no field `longname` on type `Arc<S>`
--> $DIR/suggest-field-through-deref.rs:10:15
|
LL | let _ = x.longname;
| ^^^^^^^^ help: a field with a similar name exists: `long_name`
```
CC https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78374#issuecomment-719564114
