```
error[E0610]: `{integer}` is a primitive type and therefore doesn't have fields
--> $DIR/attempted-access-non-fatal.rs:7:15
|
LL | let _ = 2.l;
| ^
|
help: if intended to be a floating point literal, consider adding a `0` after the period and a `f64` suffix
|
LL - let _ = 2.l;
LL + let _ = 2.0f64;
|
```
`best_blame_constraint`: Blame better constraints when the region graph has cycles from invariance or `'static`
This fixes#132749 by changing which constraint is blamed for region errors in several cases. `best_blame_constraint` had a heuristic that tried to pinpoint the constraint causing an error by filtering out any constraints where the outliving region is unified with the ultimate target region being outlived. However, it used the SCCs of the region graph to do this, which is unreliable; in particular, if the target region is `'static`, or if there are cycles from the presence of invariant types, it was skipping over the constraints it should be blaming. As is the case in that issue, this could lead to confusing diagnostics. The simplest fix seems to work decently, judging by test stderr: this makes `best_blame_constraint` no longer filter constraints by their outliving region's SCC.
There are admittedly some quirks in the test output. In many cases, subdiagnostics that depend on the particular constraint being blamed have either started or stopped being emitted. After starting at this for quite a while, I think anything too fickle about whether it outputs based on the particular constraint being blamed should instead be looking at the constraint path as a whole, similar to what's done for [the placeholder-from-predicate note](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...dianne:rust:better-blame-constraints-for-static#diff-3c0de6462469af483c9ecdf2c4b00cb26192218ef2d5c62a0fde75107a74caaeR506).
Very many tests involving invariant types gained a note pointing out the types' invariance, but in a few cases it was lost. A particularly illustrative example is [tests/ui/lifetimes/copy_modulo_regions.stderr](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...dianne:rust:better-blame-constraints-for-static?expand=1#diff-96e1f8b29789b3c4ce2f77a5e0fba248829b97ef9d1ce39e7d2b4aa57b2cf4f0); I'd argue the new constraint is a better one to blame, but it lacks the variance diagnostic information that's elsewhere in the constraint path. If desired, I can try making that note check the whole path rather than just the blamed constraint.
The subdiagnostic [`BorrowExplanation::add_object_lifetime_default_note`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_borrowck/diagnostics/explain_borrow/enum.BorrowExplanation.html#method.add_object_lifetime_default_note) depends on a `Cast` being blamed, so [a special case](364ca7f99c) was necessary to keep it from disappearing from tests specifically testing for it. However, see the FIXME comment in that commit; I think the special case should be removed once that subdiagnostic works properly, but it's nontrivial enough to warrant a separate PR. Incidentally, this removes the note from a test where it was being added erroneously: in [tests/ui/borrowck/two-phase-surprise-no-conflict.stderr](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...dianne:rust:better-blame-constraints-for-static?expand=1#diff-8cf085af8203677de6575a45458c9e6b03412a927df879412adec7e4f7ff5e14), the object lifetime is explicitly provided and it's not `'static`.
The SCCs of the region graph are not a reliable heuristic to use for blaming an interesting
constraint for diagnostics. For region errors, if the outlived region is `'static`, or the involved
types are invariant in their lifetiems, there will be cycles in the constraint graph containing both
the target region and the most interesting constraints to blame. To get better diagnostics in these
cases, this commit removes that heuristic.
Use `PostBorrowckAnalysis` in `check_coroutine_obligations`
This currently errors with:
```
error: concrete type differs from previous defining opaque type use
--> tests/ui/coroutine/issue-52304.rs:10:21
|
10 | pub fn example() -> impl Coroutine {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `{example::{closure#0} upvar_tys=() resume_ty=() yield_ty=&'{erased} i32 return_ty=() witness={example::{closure#0}}}`, got `{example::{closure#0} upvar_tys=() resume_ty=() yield_ty=&'static i32 return_ty=() witness={example::{closure#0}}}`
|
= note: previous use here
```
This is because we end up redefining the opaque in `check_coroutine_obligations` but with the `yield_ty = &'erased i32` from hir typeck, which causes the *equality* check for opaques to fail.
The coroutine obligtions in question (when `-Znext-solver` is enabled) are:
```
Binder { value: TraitPredicate(<Opaque(DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), []) as std::marker::Sized>, polarity:Positive), bound_vars: [] }
Binder { value: AliasRelate(Term::Ty(Alias(Opaque, AliasTy { args: [], def_id: DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), .. })), Equate, Term::Ty(Coroutine(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), [(), (), &'{erased} i32, (), CoroutineWitness(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), []), ()]))), bound_vars: [] }
Binder { value: AliasRelate(Term::Ty(Coroutine(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), [(), (), &'{erased} i32, (), CoroutineWitness(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), []), ()])), Subtype, Term::Ty(Alias(Opaque, AliasTy { args: [], def_id: DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), .. }))), bound_vars: [] }
```
Ignoring the fact that we end up stalling some really dumb obligations here (lol), I think it makes more sense for us to be using post borrowck analysis for this check anyways.
r? lcnr
Tweak multispan rendering to reduce output length
Consider comments and bare delimiters the same as an "empty line" for purposes of hiding rendered code output of long multispans. This results in more aggressive shortening of rendered output without losing too much context, specially in `*.stderr` tests that have "hidden" comments. We do that check not only on the first 4 lines of the multispan, but now also on the previous to last line as well.
Consider comments and bare delimiters the same as an "empty line" for purposes of hiding rendered code output of long multispans. This results in more aggressive shortening of rendered output without losing too much context, specially in `*.stderr` tests that have "hidden" comments.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `{gen block@$DIR/gen_block_is_coro.rs:7:5: 7:8}: Coroutine` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/gen_block_is_coro.rs:6:13
|
LL | fn foo() -> impl Coroutine<Yield = u32, Return = ()> {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Coroutine` is not implemented for `{gen block@$DIR/gen_block_is_coro.rs:7:5: 7:8}`
LL | gen { yield 42 }
| ---------------- return type was inferred to be `{gen block@$DIR/gen_block_is_coro.rs:7:5: 7:8}` here
```
The secondary span label is new.
Remove detail from label/note that is already available in other note
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
*Ignore first three commits from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132086.*
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
`optimize` attribute applied to things other than methods/functions/c…
…losures gives an error (#128488)
Duplicate of #128943, which I had accidentally closed when rebasing.
cc. `@jieyouxu` `@compiler-errors` `@nikomatsakis` `@traviscross` `@pnkfelix.`
Supress niches in coroutines to avoid aliasing violations
As mentioned [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63818#issuecomment-2264915918), using niches in fields of coroutines that are referenced by other fields is unsound: the discriminant accesses violate the aliasing requirements of the reference pointing to the relevant field. This issue causes [Miri errors in practice](https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3780).
The "obvious" fix for this is to suppress niches in coroutines. That's what this PR does. However, we have several tests explicitly ensuring that we *do* use niches in coroutines. So I see two options:
- We guard this behavior behind a `-Z` flag (that Miri will set by default). There is no known case of these aliasing violations causing miscompilations. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
- (What this PR does right now.) We temporarily adjust the coroutine layout logic and the associated tests until the proper fix lands. The "proper fix" here is to wrap fields that other fields can point to in [`UnsafePinned`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125735) and make `UnsafePinned` suppress niches; that would then still permit using niches of *other* fields (those that never get borrowed). However, I know that coroutine sizes are already a problem, so I am not sure if this temporary size regression is acceptable.
`@compiler-errors` any opinion? Also who else should be Cc'd here?
