privacy: Rename "accessibility levels" to "effective visibilities"
And a couple of other naming and comment tweaks.
Related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48054
For `enum Level` I initially used naming `enum EffectiveVisibilityLevel`, but it was too long and inconvenient because it's used pretty often.
So I shortened it to just `Level`, if it needs to be used from some context where this name would be ambiguous, then it can be imported with renaming like `use rustc_middle::privacy::Level as EffVisLevel` or something.
Fix line numbers for MIR inlined code
`should_collapse_debuginfo` detects if the specified span is part of a
macro expansion however it does this by checking if the span is anything
other than a normal (non-expanded) kind, then the span sequence is
walked backwards to the root span.
This doesn't work when the MIR inliner inlines code as it creates spans
with expansion information set to `ExprKind::Inlined` and results in the
line number being attributed to the inline callsite rather than the
normal line number of the inlined code.
Fixes#103068
Emit a nicer error on `impl Self {`
currently it emits a "cycle detected error" but this PR makes it emit a more user friendly error specifically saying that `Self` is disallowed in that position. this is a pretty hacky fix so i dont expect this to be merged (I basically only made this PR because i wanted to see if CI passes)
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Remap early bound lifetimes in return-position `impl Trait` in traits too
Fixes part of #103457
r? ``@cjgillot,`` though feel free to reassign, just thought you'd have sufficient context to review.
Don't carry MIR location in `ConstraintCategory::CallArgument`
It turns out that `ConstraintCategory::CallArgument` cannot just carry a MIR location in it, since we may bubble them up to totally different MIR bodies.
So instead, revert the commit a6b5f95fb0, and instead just erase regions from the original `Option<Ty<'tcx>>` that it carried, so that it doesn't ICE with the changes in #103220.
Best reviewed in parts -- the first is just a revert, and the second is where the meaningful changes happen.
Fixes#103624
diagnostics: do not suggest static candidates as traits to import
If it's a static candidate, then it's already implemented. Do not suggest it a second time for implementing.
Partial fix for #102354
Add suggestions for unsafe impl error codes
Adds suggestions for users to add `unsafe` to trait impls that should be `unsafe`, and remove `unsafe` from trait impls that do not require `unsafe`
With the folllowing code:
```rust
struct Foo {}
struct Bar {}
trait Safe {}
unsafe trait Unsafe {}
impl Safe for Foo {} // ok
impl Unsafe for Foo {} // E0200
unsafe impl Safe for Bar {} // E0199
unsafe impl Unsafe for Bar {} // ok
// omitted empty main fn
```
The current rustc output is:
```
error[E0199]: implementing the trait `Safe` is not unsafe
--> e0200.rs:13:1
|
13 | unsafe impl Safe for Bar {} // E0199
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error[E0200]: the trait `Unsafe` requires an `unsafe impl` declaration
--> e0200.rs:11:1
|
11 | impl Unsafe for Foo {} // E0200
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
Some errors have detailed explanations: E0199, E0200.
For more information about an error, try `rustc --explain E0199`.
```
With this PR, the future rustc output would be:
```
error[E0199]: implementing the trait `Safe` is not unsafe
--> ../../temp/e0200.rs:13:1
|
13 | unsafe impl Safe for Bar {} // E0199
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: remove `unsafe` from this trait implementation
|
13 - unsafe impl Safe for Bar {} // E0199
13 + impl Safe for Bar {} // E0199
|
error[E0200]: the trait `Unsafe` requires an `unsafe impl` declaration
--> ../../temp/e0200.rs:11:1
|
11 | impl Unsafe for Foo {} // E0200
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: the trait `Unsafe` enforces invariants that the compiler can't check. Review the trait documentation and make sure this implementation upholds those invariants before adding the `unsafe` keyword
help: add `unsafe` to this trait implementation
|
11 | unsafe impl Unsafe for Foo {} // E0200
| ++++++
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
Some errors have detailed explanations: E0199, E0200.
For more information about an error, try `rustc --explain E0199`.
```
``@rustbot`` label +T-compiler +A-diagnostics +A-suggestion-diagnostics
Add flag to forbid recovery in the parser
To start the effort of fixing #103534, this adds a new flag to the parser, which forbids the parser from doing recovery, which it shouldn't do in macros.
This doesn't add any new checks for recoveries yet and is just here to bikeshed the names for the functions here before doing more.
r? `@compiler-errors`
rustc_metadata: Add struct and variant constructors to module children at encoding time
instead of decoding time.
Continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95899.
The last time it caused some ICEs from generator use, but not everything seems ok.
Clean up hidden type registration
work on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101186
Actually passing down the relation and using it instead of `eq` for the hidden type comparison has *no* effect whatsoever and allows for no further improvements at the call sites. I decided the increased complexity was not worth it and thus did not include that change in this PR.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #103035 (Even nicer errors from assert_unsafe_precondition)
- #103106 (Try to say that memory outside the AM is always exposed)
- #103475 (Make param index generation a bit more robust)
- #103525 (Move a wf-check into the site where the value is instantiated)
- #103564 (library: allow some unused things in Miri)
- #103586 (Process registered region obligation in `resolve_regions_with_wf_tys`)
- #103592 (rustdoc: remove redundant CSS selector `.notable-traits .notable`)
- #103593 (Remove an unused parser function (`Expr::returns`))
- #103611 (Add test for issue 103574)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Remove `commit_if_ok` probe from NLL type relation
It was not really necessary to add the `commit_if_ok` in #100092 -- I added it to protect us against weird inference error messages due to recursive RPIT calls, but we are always on the error path when this happens anyways, and I can't come up with an example that makes this manifest.
Fixes#103599
r? `@oli-obk` since you reviewed #100092, feel free to re-roll.
🅱️📢 beta-nominating this since it's on beta (which forks in ~a week~ two days 😨) -- worst case we could revert the original PR on beta and land this on nightly, to give it some extra soak time...
Diagnostic derives: allow specifying multiple alternative suggestions
This allows porting `span_suggestions()` to diagnostic structs.
Doesn't work for `multipart_suggestions()` because the rank would be reversed - the struct would specify multiple spans, each of which has multiple possible replacements, while `multipart_suggestions()` creates multiple possible replacements, each with multiple spans.
