Do not consider synthesized RPITITs on missing items checks
Without this patch for `tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait/dont-project-to-rpitit-with-no-value.rs` we get ...
```
warning: the feature `return_position_impl_trait_in_trait` is incomplete and may not be safe to use and/or cause compiler crashes
--> tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait/dont-project-to-rpitit-with-no-value.rs:4:12
|
4 | #![feature(return_position_impl_trait_in_trait)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: see issue #91611 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91611> for more information
= note: `#[warn(incomplete_features)]` on by default
error[E0046]: not all trait items implemented, missing: `foo`, ``
--> tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait/dont-project-to-rpitit-with-no-value.rs:12:1
|
8 | fn foo(&self) -> impl Sized;
| ----------------------------
| | |
| | `` from trait
| `foo` from trait
...
12 | impl MyTrait for i32 {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ missing `foo`, `` in implementation
error: aborting due to previous error; 1 warning emitted
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0046`.
```
instead of ...
```
warning: the feature `return_position_impl_trait_in_trait` is incomplete and may not be safe to use and/or cause compiler crashes
--> $DIR/dont-project-to-rpitit-with-no-value.rs:4:12
|
LL | #![feature(return_position_impl_trait_in_trait)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: see issue #91611 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91611> for more information
= note: `#[warn(incomplete_features)]` on by default
error[E0046]: not all trait items implemented, missing: `foo`
--> $DIR/dont-project-to-rpitit-with-no-value.rs:12:1
|
LL | fn foo(&self) -> impl Sized;
| ---------------------------- `foo` from trait
...
LL | impl MyTrait for i32 {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ missing `foo` in implementation
error: aborting due to previous error; 1 warning emitted
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0046`.
```
r? `@compiler-errors`
Walk un-shifted nested `impl Trait` in trait when setting up default trait method assumptions
Fixes a double subtraction in some binder math in return-position `impl Trait` in trait handling code.
Fixes#109239
Fix generics_of for impl's RPITIT synthesized associated type
The only useful commit is the last one.
This makes `generics_of` for the impl side RPITIT copy from the trait's associated type and avoid the fn on the impl side which was previously wrongly used.
This solution is better but we still need to fix resolution of the generated generics.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Fix generics mismatch errors for RPITITs on -Zlower-impl-trait-in-trait-to-assoc-ty
This PR stops reporting errors due to different count of generics on the new synthesized associated types for RPITITs. Those were already reported when we compare the function on the triat with the function on the impl.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Make fns from other crates with RPITIT work for -Zlower-impl-trait-in-trait-to-assoc-ty
Only the last two commits are meaningful.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Remove tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait/new-lowering-strategy in favor of using revisions on existing tests
r? `@compiler-errors`
This one again sits on top of existing approved PRs and it still needs to add revisions to tests in `tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait` as it only does so for async in traits.
Remove `identity_future` indirection
This was previously needed because the indirection used to hide some unexplained lifetime errors, which it turned out were related to the `min_choice` algorithm.
Removing the indirection also solves a couple of cycle errors, large moves and makes async blocks support the `#[track_caller]`annotation.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104826.
This was previously needed because the indirection used to hide some unexplained lifetime errors, which it turned out were related to the `min_choice` algorithm.
Removing the indirection also solves a couple of cycle errors, large moves and makes async blocks support the `#[track_caller]` annotation.
Account for binders correctly when adding default RPITIT method assumption
As of #108203, we install extra projection predicates into the param-env of a default trait method when it has return-position `impl Trait` (or is async).
The implementation didn't account for the fact that it's walking into and out of binders, so we just need to shift all the debruijn indices accordingly when constructing the projection predicates.
Fixes#108579
r? types
Label opaque type for 'captures lifetime' error message
Providing more information may help make this somewhat opaque (lol) error message a bit clearer.
diagnostics: remove inconsistent English article "this" from E0107
Consider [`tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr`][issue-102768.stderr], the error message where it gives additional notes about where the associated type is defined, and how the dead code lint doesn't have an article, like in [`tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr`][issue-85255.stderr]. They don't have articles, so it seems unnecessary to have one here.
[issue-102768.stderr]: 07c993eba8/tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr
[issue-85255.stderr]: 07c993eba8/tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr
Consider `tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr`,
the error message where it gives additional notes about where the associated
type is defined, and how the dead code lint doesn't have an article,
like in `tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr`. They don't have
articles, so it seems unnecessary to have one here.
Ban associated type bounds in bad positions
We should not try to lower associated type bounds into TAITs in positions where `impl Trait` is not allowed (except for in `where` clauses, like `where T: Trait<Assoc: Bound>`).
This is achieved by using the same `rustc_ast_lowering` machinery as impl-trait does to characterize positions as universal/existential/disallowed.
Fixes#106077
Split out the first commit into #108066, since it's not really related.
Define the `named_static_lifetimes` lint
This lint will replace the existing hard-warning.
Replace the named static lifetime hard-warning with the new lint
Update the UI tests for the `named_static_lifetimes` lint
Remove the direct dependency on `rustc_lint_defs`
fix build
Signed-off-by: Zhi Qi <qizhi@pingcap.com>
use "UNUSED_LIFETIMES" instead
Signed-off-by: Zhi Qi <qizhi@pingcap.com>
update 1 test and fix typo
Signed-off-by: Zhi Qi <qizhi@pingcap.com>
update tests
Signed-off-by: Zhi Qi <qizhi@pingcap.com>
fix tests: add extra blank line
Signed-off-by: Zhi Qi <qizhi@pingcap.com>
Most tests involving save-analysis were removed, but I kept a few where
the `-Zsave-analysis` was an add-on to the main thing being tested,
rather than the main thing being tested.
For `x.py install`, the `rust-analysis` target has been removed.
For `x.py dist`, the `rust-analysis` target has been kept in a
degenerate form: it just produces a single file `reduced.json`
indicating that save-analysis has been removed. This is necessary for
rustup to keep working.
Closes#43606.
fix: improve the suggestion on future not awaited
Considering the following code
```rust
fn foo() -> u8 {
async fn async_fn() -> u8 { 22 }
async_fn()
}
fn main() {}
```
the error generated before this commit from the compiler is
```
➜ rust git:(macros/async_fn_suggestion) ✗ rustc test.rs --edition 2021
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found opaque type
|
= note: expected type `u8`
found opaque type `impl Future<Output = u8>`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
In this case the error is nor perfect, and can confuse the user that do not know that the opaque type is the future.
So this commit will propose (and conclude the work start in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80658)
to change the string `opaque type` to `future` when applicable and also remove the Expected vs Received note by adding a more specific one regarding the async function that return a future type.
So the new error emitted by the compiler is
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found future
|
note: calling an async function returns a future
--> test.rs:4:5
|
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80658
It remains to rework the case described in the following issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107899 but I think this deserves its own PR after we discuss a little bit how to handle these kinds of cases.
r? `@eholk`
`@rustbot` label +I-async-nominated
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
Considering the following code
```rust
fn foo() -> u8 {
async fn async_fn() -> u8 { 22 }
async_fn()
}
fn main() {}
```
the error generated before this commit from the compiler is
```
➜ rust git:(macros/async_fn_suggestion) ✗ rustc test.rs --edition 2021
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found opaque type
|
= note: expected type `u8`
found opaque type `impl Future<Output = u8>`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
In this case the error is nor perfect, and can confuse the user
that do not know that the opaque type is the future.
So this commit will propose (and conclude the work start in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80658)
to change the string `opaque type` to `future` when applicable
and also remove the Expected vs Received note by adding a more
specific one regarding the async function that return a future type.
So the new error emitted by the compiler is
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found future
|
note: calling an async function returns a future
--> test.rs:4:5
|
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
Don't cause a cycle when formatting query description that references a FnDef
When a function returns `-> _`, we use typeck to compute what the resulting type of the body _should_ be. If we call another query inside of typeck and hit a cycle error, we attempt to report the cycle error which requires us to compute all of the query descriptions for the stack.
However, if one of the queries in that cycle has a query description that references this function as a FnDef type, we'll cause a *second* cycle error from within the cycle error reporting code, since rendering a FnDef requires us to compute its signature. This causes an unwrap to ICE, since during the *second* cycle reporting code, we try to look for a job that isn't in the active jobs list.
We can avoid this by using `with_no_queries!` when computing these query descriptions.
Fixes#107089
The only drawback is that the rendering of opaque types in cycles regresses a bit :| I'm open to alternate suggestions about how we may handle this...
Remove confusing 'while checking' note from opaque future type mismatches
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the wording of the note. The only value I can see in this note is that it points out where the async's opaque future is coming from, but the way it's doing it is misleading IMO.
For example:
```rust
note: while checking the return type of the `async fn`
--> $DIR/dont-suggest-missing-await.rs:7:24
|
LL | async fn make_u32() -> u32 {
| ^^^ checked the `Output` of this `async fn`, found opaque type
```
We point at the type `u32` in the HIR, but then say "found opaque type". We also say "while checking"... but we're typechecking a totally different function when we get this type mismatch!
r? ``@estebank`` but feel free to reassign and/or take your time reviewing this. I'd be inclined to also discuss reworking the presentation of this type mismatch to restore some of these labels in a way that makes it more clear what it's trying to point out.
Do not filter substs in `remap_generic_params_to_declaration_params`.
The relevant filtering should have been performed by borrowck.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105826
r? types
