```
error: `S2<'_>` is forbidden as the type of a const generic parameter
--> $DIR/lifetime-in-const-param.rs:5:23
|
LL | struct S<'a, const N: S2>(&'a ());
| ^^
|
= note: the only supported types are integers, `bool` and `char`
help: add `#![feature(adt_const_params)]` to the crate attributes to enable more complex and user defined types
|
LL + #![feature(adt_const_params)]
|
```
Fix#55941.
Eagerly translate `HelpUseLatestEdition` in parser diagnostics
Fixes#122130.
This makes me suspicious of these other two usage of `add_to_diagnostic()`. Would they *also* crash? I haven't attempted to construct test cases for them.
```
compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs
3453: errors::HelpUseLatestEdition::new().add_to_diagnostic(e);
compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/expr.rs
2603: HelpUseLatestEdition::new().add_to_diagnostic(&mut err);
```
This also seems like a footgun?
AST validation: Improve handling of inherent impls nested within functions and anon consts
Minimal fix for issue #121607 extracted from PR #120698 for ease of backporting and since I'd like to improve PR #120698 in such a way that it makes AST validator truly robust against such sort of regressions (AST validator is generally *beyond* footgun-y atm). The current version of PR #120698 sort of does that already but there's still room for improvement.
Fixes#89342.
Fixes [after beta-backport] #121607.
Partially addresses #119924 (#120698 aims to fully fix it).
---
### Explainer
The last commit of PR #119505 regressed issue #121607.
Previously we would reject visibilities on associated items with `visibility_not_permitted` if we were in a trait (by checking the parameter `ctxt` of `visit_assoc_item` which was 100% accurate) or if we were in a trait impl (by checking a flag called `in_trait_impl` tracked in `AstValidator` which was/is only accurate if the visitor methods correctly updated it which isn't actually the case giving rise to the old open issue #89342).
In PR #119505, I moved even more state into the `AstValidator` by generalizing the flag `in_trait_impl` to `trait_or_trait_impl` to be able to report more precise diagnostics (modeling *Trait | TraitImpl*). However since we/I didn't update `trait_or_trait_impl` in all places to reflect reality (similar to us not updating `in_trait_impl` before), this lead to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121607#issuecomment-1963084636 getting wrongfully rejected. Since PR #119505 we reject visibilities if the “globally tracked” (wrt. to `AstValidator`) `outer_trait_or_trait_impl` is `Some`.
Crucially, when visiting an inherent impl, I never reset `outer_trait_or_trait_impl` back to `None` leading us to believe that `bar` in the stack [`trait Foo` > `fn foo` > `impl Bar` > `pub fn bar`] (from the MCVE) was an inherent associated item (we saw `trait Foo` but not `impl Bar` before it).
The old open issue #89342 is caused by the aforementioned issue of us never updating `in_trait_impl` prior to my PR #119505 / `outer_trait_or_trait` after my PR. Stack: [`impl Default for Foo` > `{` > `impl Foo` > `pub const X`] (we only saw `impl Default for Foo` but not the `impl Foo` before it).
---
This PR is only meant to be a *hot fix*. I plan on completely *rewriting* `AstValidator` from the ground up to not rely on “globally tracked” state like this or at least make it close to impossible to forget updating it when descending into nested items (etc.). Other visitors do a way better job at that (e.g. AST lowering). I actually plan on experimenting with moving more and more logic from `AstValidator` into the AST lowering pass/stage/visitor to follow the [Parse, don't validate](https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-validate/) “pattern”.
---
r? `@compiler-errors`
Detect more cases of `=` to `:` typo
When a `Local` is fully parsed, but not followed by a `;`, keep the `:` span arround and mention it. If the type could continue being parsed as an expression, suggest replacing the `:` with a `=`.
```
error: expected one of `!`, `+`, `->`, `::`, `;`, or `=`, found `.`
--> file.rs:2:32
|
2 | let _: std::env::temp_dir().join("foo");
| - ^ expected one of `!`, `+`, `->`, `::`, `;`, or `=`
| |
| while parsing the type for `_`
| help: use `=` if you meant to assign
```
Fix#119665.
Add stubs in IR and ABI for `f16` and `f128`
This is the very first step toward the changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114607 and the [`f16` and `f128` RFC](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3453-f16-and-f128.html). It adds the types to `rustc_type_ir::FloatTy` and `rustc_abi::Primitive`, and just propagates those out as `unimplemented!` stubs where necessary.
These types do not parse yet so there is no feature gate, and it should be okay to use `unimplemented!`.
The next steps will probably be AST support with parsing and the feature gate.
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@Nilstrieb` suggested breaking the PR up in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120645#issuecomment-1925900572
When a `Local` is fully parsed, but not followed by a `;`, keep the `:` span
arround and mention it. If the type could continue being parsed as an
expression, suggest replacing the `:` with a `=`.
```
error: expected one of `!`, `+`, `->`, `::`, `;`, or `=`, found `.`
--> file.rs:2:32
|
2 | let _: std::env::temp_dir().join("foo");
| - ^ expected one of `!`, `+`, `->`, `::`, `;`, or `=`
| |
| while parsing the type for `_`
| help: use `=` if you meant to assign
```
Fix#119665.
- Put every literal in its own braces, rather than just some of them,
for maximal error recovery.
- Add a blank line between every case, for readability.
Fix OutsideLoop's error suggestion: adding label `'block` for `if` block.
For OutsideLoop we should not suggest add `'block` label in `if` block, or we wiil get another err: block label not supported here.
fixes#123261
Disallow cast with trailing braced macro in let-else
This fixes an edge case I noticed while porting #118880 and #119062 to syn.
Previously, rustc incorrectly accepted code such as:
```rust
let foo = &std::ptr::null as &'static dyn std::ops::Fn() -> *const primitive! {
8
} else {
return;
};
```
even though a right curl brace `}` directly before `else` in a `let...else` statement is not supposed to be valid syntax.
The change to the test is a little goofy because the compiler was
guessing "correctly" before that `falsy! {}` is the condition as opposed
to the else body. But I believe this change is fundamentally correct.
Braced macro invocations in statement position are most often item-like
(`thread_local! {...}`) as opposed to parenthesized macro invocations
which are condition-like (`cfg!(...)`).
Make sure we consume a generic arg when checking mistyped turbofish
When recovering un-turbofish-ed args in expr position (e.g. `let x = a<T, U>();` in `check_mistyped_turbofish_with_multiple_type_params`, we used `parse_seq_to_before_end` to parse the fake generic args; however, it used `parse_generic_arg` which *optionally* parses a generic arg. If it doesn't end up parsing an arg, it returns `Ok(None)` and consumes no tokens. If we don't find a delimiter after this (`,`), we try parsing *another* element. In this case, we just infinitely loop looking for a subsequent element.
We can fix this by making sure that we either parse a generic arg or error in `parse_seq_to_before_end`'s callback.
Fixes#124897
Disallow ambiguous attributes on expressions
This implements the suggestion in [#15701](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701#issuecomment-2033124217) to disallow ambiguous outer attributes on expressions. This should resolve one of the concerns blocking the stabilization of `stmt_expr_attributes`.
Improve handling of expr->field errors
The current message for "`->` used for field access" is the following:
```rust
error: expected one of `!`, `.`, `::`, `;`, `?`, `{`, `}`, or an operator, found `->`
--> src/main.rs:2:6
|
2 | a->b;
| ^^ expected one of 8 possible tokens
```
([playground link](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=7f8b6f4433aa7866124123575456f54e))
This PR tries to address this by adding a dedicated error message and recovery. The proposed error message is:
```
error: `->` used for field access or method call
--> ./tiny_test.rs:2:6
|
2 | a->b;
| ^^ help: try using `.` instead
|
= help: the `.` operator will dereference the value if needed
```
(feel free to bikeshed it as much as necessary)
The current message for "`->` used for field access" is the following:
```rust
error: expected one of `!`, `.`, `::`, `;`, `?`, `{`, `}`, or an operator, found `->`
--> src/main.rs:2:6
|
2 | a->b;
| ^^ expected one of 8 possible tokens
```
(playground link[1])
This PR tries to address this by adding a dedicated error message and recovery. The proposed error message is:
```
error: `->` used for field access or method call
--> ./tiny_test.rs:2:6
|
2 | a->b;
| ^^ help: try using `.` instead
|
= help: the `.` operator will dereference the value if needed
```
(feel free to bikeshed it as much as necessary)
[1]: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=7f8b6f4433aa7866124123575456f54e
Signed-off-by: Sasha Pourcelot <sasha.pourcelot@protonmail.com>
Fix msg for verbose suggestions with confusable capitalization
When encountering a verbose/multipart suggestion that has changes that are only caused by different capitalization of ASCII letters that have little differenciation, expand the message to highlight that fact (like we already do for inline suggestions).
The logic to do this was already present, but implemented incorrectly.
When encountering a verbose/multipart suggestion that has changes
that are only caused by different capitalization of ASCII letters that have
little differenciation, expand the message to highlight that fact (like we
already do for inline suggestions).
The logic to do this was already present, but implemented incorrectly.
Continue compilation after check_mod_type_wf errors
The ICEs fixed here were probably reachable through const eval gymnastics before, but now they are easily reachable without that, too.
The new errors are often bugfixes, where useful errors were missing, because they were reported after the early abort. In other cases sometimes they are just duplication of already emitted errors, which won't be user-visible due to deduplication.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120860
make matching on NaN a hard error, and remove the rest of illegal_floating_point_literal_pattern
These arms would never be hit anyway, so the pattern makes little sense. We have had a future-compat lint against float matches in general for a *long* time, so I hope we can get away with immediately making this a hard error.
This is part of implementing https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3535.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41620 by removing the lint.
https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1456 updates the reference to match.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #119759 (Add FileCheck annotations to dataflow-const-prop tests)
- #120323 (On E0277 be clearer about implicit `Sized` bounds on type params and assoc types)
- #120473 (Only suggest removal of `as_*` and `to_` conversion methods on E0308)
- #120540 (add test for try-block-in-match-arm)
- #120547 (`#![feature(inline_const_pat)]` is no longer incomplete)
- #120552 (Correctly check `never_type` feature gating)
- #120555 (put pnkfelix (me) back on the review queue.)
- #120556 (Improve the diagnostics for unused generic parameters)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Improve the diagnostics for unused generic parameters
* Don't emit two errors (namely E0091 *and* E0392) for unused type parameters on *lazy* type aliases
* Fix the diagnostic help message of E0392 for *lazy* type aliases: Don't talk about the “fields” of lazy type aliases (use the term “body” instead) and don't suggest `PhantomData` for them, it doesn't make much sense
* Consolidate the diagnostics for E0091 (unused type parameters in type aliases) and E0392 (unused generic parameters due to bivariance) and make it translatable
* Still keep the error codes distinct (for now)
* Naturally leads to better diagnostics for E0091
r? ```@oli-obk``` (to ballast your review load :P) or compiler
Expand the primary span of E0277 when the immediate unmet bound is not what the user wrote:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `i32: Bar` is not satisfied
--> f100.rs:6:6
|
6 | <i32 as Foo>::foo();
| ^^^ the trait `Bar` is not implemented for `i32`, which is required by `i32: Foo`
|
help: this trait has no implementations, consider adding one
--> f100.rs:2:1
|
2 | trait Bar {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
note: required for `i32` to implement `Foo`
--> f100.rs:3:14
|
3 | impl<T: Bar> Foo for T {}
| --- ^^^ ^
| |
| unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
```
Fix#40120.
Deduplicate more sized errors on call exprs
Change the implicit `Sized` `Obligation` `Span` for call expressions to include the whole expression. This aids the existing deduplication machinery to reduce the number of errors caused by a single unsized expression.
Be more careful about interpreting a label/lifetime as a mistyped char literal.
Currently the parser interprets any label/lifetime in certain positions as a mistyped char literal, on the assumption that the trailing single quote was accidentally omitted. In such cases it gives an error with a suggestion to add the trailing single quote, and then puts the appropriate char literal into the AST. This behaviour was introduced in #101293.
This is reasonable for a case like this:
```
let c = 'a;
```
because `'a'` is a valid char literal. It's less reasonable for a case like this:
```
let c = 'abc;
```
because `'abc'` is not a valid char literal.
Prior to #120329 this could result in some sub-optimal suggestions in error messages, but nothing else. But #120329 changed `LitKind::from_token_lit` to assume that the char/byte/string literals it receives are valid, and to assert if not. This is reasonable because the lexer does not produce invalid char/byte/string literals in general. But in this "interpret label/lifetime as unclosed char literal" case the parser can produce an invalid char literal with contents such as `abc`, which triggers an assertion failure.
This PR changes the parser so it's more cautious about interpreting labels/lifetimes as unclosed char literals.
Fixes#120397.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Currently the parser will interpret any label/lifetime in certain
positions as a mistyped char literal, on the assumption that the
trailing single quote was accidentally omitted. This is reasonable for a
something like 'a (because 'a' would be valid) but not reasonable for a
something like 'abc (because 'abc' is not valid).
This commit restricts this behaviour only to labels/lifetimes that would
be valid char literals, via the new `could_be_unclosed_char_literal`
function. The commit also augments the `label-is-actually-char.rs` test
in a couple of ways:
- Adds testing of labels/lifetimes with identifiers longer than one
char, e.g. 'abc.
- Adds a new match with simpler patterns, because the
`recover_unclosed_char` call in `parse_pat_with_range_pat` was not
being exercised (in this test or any other ui tests).
Fixes#120397, an assertion failure, which was caused by this behaviour
in the parser interacting with some new stricter char literal checking
added in #120329.
Properly recover from trailing attr in body
When encountering an attribute in a body, we try to recover from an attribute on an expression (as opposed to a statement). We need to properly clean up when the attribute is at the end of the body where a tail expression would be.
Fix#118164, fix#118575.
When encountering an attribute in a body, we try to recover from an
attribute on an expression (as opposed to a statement). We need to
properly clean up when the attribute is at the end of the body where a
tail expression would be.
Fix#118164.
Change the implicit `Sized` `Obligation` `Span` for call expressions to
include the whole expression. This aids the existing deduplication
machinery to reduce the number of errors caused by a single unsized
expression.
Remove special handling of `box` expressions from parser
#108471 added a temporary hack to parse `box expr`. It's been almost a year since then, so I think it's safe to remove the special handling.
As a drive-by cleanup, move `parser/removed-syntax*` tests to their own directory.
Recover parentheses in range patterns
Before:
```rs
match n {
(0).. => (),
_ => ()
}
```
```
error: expected one of `=>`, `if`, or `|`, found `..`
--> src/lib.rs:3:12
|
3 | (0).. => (),
| ^^ expected one of `=>`, `if`, or `|`
```
After:
```
error: range pattern bounds cannot have parentheses
--> main.rs:3:5
|
3 | (0).. => (),
| ^ ^
|
help: remove these parentheses
|
3 - (0).. => (),
3 + 0.. => (),
|
```
This sets the groundwork for #118625, which will extend the recovery to expressions like `(0 + 1)..` where users may tend to add parentheses to avoid dealing with precedence.
---
```@rustbot``` label +A-parser +A-patterns +A-diagnostics
Introduce `const Trait` (always-const trait bounds)
Feature `const_trait_impl` currently lacks a way to express “always const” trait bounds. This makes it impossible to define generic items like fns or structs which contain types that depend on const method calls (\*). While the final design and esp. the syntax of effects / keyword generics isn't set in stone, some version of “always const” trait bounds will very likely form a part of it. Further, their implementation is trivial thanks to the `effects` backbone.
Not sure if this needs t-lang sign-off though.
(\*):
```rs
#![feature(const_trait_impl, effects, generic_const_exprs)]
fn compute<T: const Trait>() -> Type<{ T::generate() }> { /*…*/ }
struct Store<T: const Trait>
where
Type<{ T::generate() }>:,
{
field: Type<{ T::generate() }>,
}
```
Lastly, “always const” trait bounds are a perfect fit for `generic_const_items`.
```rs
#![feature(const_trait_impl, effects, generic_const_items)]
const DEFAULT<T: const Default>: T = T::default();
```
Previously, we (oli, fee1-dead and I) wanted to reinterpret `~const Trait` as `const Trait` in generic const items which would've been quite surprising and not very generalizable.
Supersedes #117530.
---
cc `@oli-obk`
As discussed
r? fee1-dead (or compiler)
Properly reject `default` on free const items
Fixes#117791.
Technically speaking, this is a breaking change but I doubt it will lead to any real-world regressions (maybe in some macro-trickery crates?). Doing a crater run probably isn't worth it.
Add inline const and other possible curly brace expressions to expr_trailing_brace
Add tests for `}` before `else` in `let...else` error
Change to explicit cases for expressions with optional values when being checked for trailing braces
Add tests for more complex cases of `}` before `else` in `let..else` statement
Move other possible `}` cases into separate arm and add FIXME for future reference
Correctly gate the parsing of match arms without body
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118527 accidentally allowed the following to parse on stable:
```rust
match Some(0) {
None => { foo(); }
#[cfg(FALSE)]
Some(_)
}
```
This fixes that oversight. The way I choose which error to emit is the best I could think of, I'm open if you know a better way.
r? `@petrochenkov` since you're the one who noticed
Attribute values must be literals. The error you get when that doesn't
hold is pretty bad, e.g.:
```
unexpected expression: 1 + 1
```
You also get the same error if the attribute value is a literal, but an
invalid literal, e.g.:
```
unexpected expression: "foo"suffix
```
This commit does two things.
- Changes the error message to "attribute value must be a literal",
which gives a better idea of what the problem is and how to fix it. It
also no longer prints the invalid expression, because the carets below
highlight it anyway.
- Separates the "not a literal" case from the "invalid literal" case.
Which means invalid literals now get the specific error at the literal
level, rather than at the attribute level.
never_patterns: Parse match arms with no body
Never patterns are meant to signal unreachable cases, and thus don't take bodies:
```rust
let ptr: *const Option<!> = ...;
match *ptr {
None => { foo(); }
Some(!),
}
```
This PR makes rustc accept the above, and enforces that an arm has a body xor is a never pattern. This affects parsing of match arms even with the feature off, so this is delicate. (Plus this is my first non-trivial change to the parser).
~~The last commit is optional; it introduces a bit of churn to allow the new suggestions to be machine-applicable. There may be a better solution? I'm not sure.~~ EDIT: I removed that commit
r? `@compiler-errors`
Tweak unclosed generics errors
Remove unnecessary span label for parse errors that already have a suggestion.
Provide structured suggestion to close generics in more cases.
Because a macro invocation can expand to a never pattern, we can't rule
out a `arm!(),` arm at parse time. Instead we detect that case at
expansion time, if the macro tries to output a pattern followed by `=>`.
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
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
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)
```
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
