The `rustc_span::FileName` enum already differentiates between real
files and "fake" files such as `<anon>`. We do not need to artificially
forbid real file names from ending in `>`.
Do not assert that hidden types don't have erased regions.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116306
`args` can have erased regions.
In the linked issue, this is reached by computing whether a large type is `Freeze` to compute its ABI.
I do not have a minimized test to include.
Add a note to duplicate diagnostics
Helps explain why there may be a difference between manual testing and the test suite output and highlights them as something to potentially look into
For existing duplicate diagnostics I just blessed them other than a few files that had other `NOTE` annotations in
Diagnostics: Be more careful when suggesting struct fields
Consolidate the various places which filter out struct fields that shouldn't be suggested into a single function.
Previously, each of those code paths had slightly different and incomplete metrics for no good reason. Now, there's only a single 'complete' metric (namely `is_field_suggestable`) which also filters out hygienic fields that come from different syntax contexts.
Fixes#116334.
More accurately point to where default return type should go
When getting the "default return type" span, instead of pointing to the low span of the next token, point to the high span of the previous token. This:
1. Makes forming return type suggestions more uniform, since we expect them all in the same place.
2. Arguably makes labels easier to understand, since we're pointing to where the implicit `-> ()` would've gone, rather than the starting brace or the semicolon.
r? ```@estebank```
Currently `rust_20XX_preview` features aren't recorded as declared even
when they are explicit declared. Similarly, redundant edition-dependent
features (e.g. `test_2018_feature`) aren't recorded as declared.
This commit marks them as recorded. There is no detectable functional
change, but it makes things more consistent.
The word "active" is currently used in two different and confusing ways:
- `ACTIVE_FEATURES` actually means "available unstable features"
- `Features::active_features` actually means "features declared in the
crate's code", which can include feature within `ACTIVE_FEATURES` but
also others.
(This is also distinct from "enabled" features which includes declared
features but also some edition-specific features automatically enabled
depending on the edition in use.)
This commit changes the `Features::active_features` to
`Features::declared_features` which actually matches its meaning.
Likewise, `Features::active` becomes `Features::declared`.
The new way of doing things:
- Avoids some code duplication.
- Distinguishes the `crate_edition` (which comes from `--edition`) and
the `features_edition` (which combines `--edition` along with any
`rustc_20XX_preview` features), which is useful.
- Has a simpler initial loop, one that just looks for
`rustc_20XX_preview` features in order to compute `features_edition`.
- Creates a fallible alternative to `Features::enabled`, which is
useful.
It's not easy to see how exactly the old and new code are equivalent,
but it's reassuring to know that the test coverage is quite good for
this stuff.
There is a single features (`no_stack_check`) in
`STABLE_REMOVED_FEATURES`. But the treatment of
`STABLE_REMOVED_FEATURES` and `REMOVED_FEATURES` is actually identical.
So this commit just merges them, and uses a comment to record
`no_stack_check`'s unique "stable removed" status.
This also lets `State::Stabilized` (which was a terrible name) be
removed.
It currently processes `ACTIVE_FEATURES` separately from
`ACCEPTED_FEATURES`, `REMOVED_FEATURES`, and `STABLE_REMOVED_FEATURES`,
for no good reason. This commit treats them uniformly.
It's a macro with four clauses, three of which are doing one thing, and
the fourth is doing something completely different. This commit splits
it into two macros, which is more sensible.
Remove the `TypedArena::alloc_from_iter` specialization.
It was added in #78569. It's complicated and doesn't actually help
performance.
r? `@cjgillot`
In `report_fullfillment_errors` push back `T: Sized`, `T: WellFormed`
and coercion errors to the end of the list. The pre-existing
deduplication logic eliminates redundant errors better that way, keeping
the resulting output with fewer errors than before, while also having
more detail.
```
error: expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`, found `.`
--> $DIR/missing-fat-arrow.rs:25:14
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b {
| - while parsing this struct
LL | a.value = 1;
| -^ expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`
| |
| while parsing this struct field
|
help: try naming a field
|
LL | a: a.value = 1;
| ++
help: you might have meant to start a match arm after the match guard
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b => {
| ++
```
Fix#78585.
coverage: Allow each coverage statement to have multiple code regions
The original implementation of coverage instrumentation was built around the assumption that a coverage counter/expression would be associated with *up to one* code region. When it was discovered that *multiple* regions would sometimes need to share a counter, a workaround was found: for the remaining regions, the instrumentor would create a fresh expression that adds zero to the existing counter/expression.
That got the job done, but resulted in some awkward code, and produces unnecessarily complicated coverage maps in the final binary.
---
This PR removes that tension by changing `StatementKind::Coverage`'s code region field from `Option<CodeRegion>` to `Vec<CodeRegion>`.
The changes on the codegen side are fairly straightforward. As long as each `CoverageKind::Counter` only injects one `llvm.instrprof.increment`, the rest of coverage codegen is happy to handle multiple regions mapped to the same counter/expression, with only minor option-to-vec adjustments.
On the instrumentor/mir-transform side, we can get rid of the code that creates extra (x + 0) expressions. Instead we gather all of the code regions associated with a single BCB, and inject them all into one coverage statement.
---
There are several patches here but they can be divided in to three phases:
- Preparatory work
- Actually switching over to multiple regions per coverage statement
- Cleaning up
So viewing the patches individually may be easier.
non_lifetime_binders: fix ICE in lint opaque-hidden-inferred-bound
Opaque types like `impl for<T> Trait<T>` would previously lead to an ICE.
r? `@compiler-errors`
a small wf and clause cleanup
- remove `Clause::from_projection_clause`, instead use `ToPredicate`
- change `predicate_obligations` to directly take a `Clause`
- remove some unnecessary `&`
- use clause in `min_specialization` checks where easily applicable
Suggest `pin!()` instead of `Pin::new()` when appropriate
When encountering a type that needs to be pinned but that is `!Unpin`, suggest using the `pin!()` macro.
Fix#57994.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #115863 (Add check_unused_messages in tidy)
- #116210 (Ensure that `~const` trait bounds on associated functions are in const traits or impls)
- #116358 (Rename both of the `Match` relations)
- #116371 (Remove unused features from `rustc_llvm`.)
- #116374 (Print normalized ty)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Print normalized ty
Inside `mir_assign_valid_types` we are comparing normalized type of `mir_place` but in debug message we are not printing the normalized value, this changes that.
It was added in #78569. It's complicated and doesn't actually help
performance.
Also, add a comment explaining why the two `alloc_from_iter` functions
are so different.
Don't suggest nonsense suggestions for unconstrained type vars in `note_source_of_type_mismatch_constraint`
The way we do type inference for suggestions in `note_source_of_type_mismatch_constraint` is a bit strange. We compute the "ideal" method signature, which takes the receiver that we *want* and uses it to compute the types of the arguments that would have given us that receiver via type inference, and use *that* to suggest how to change an argument to make sure our receiver type is inferred correctly.
The problem is that sometimes we have totally unconstrained arguments (well, they're constrained by things outside of the type checker per se, like associated types), and therefore type suggestions are happy to coerce anything to that unconstrained argument. This leads to bogus suggestions, like #116155. This is partly due to above, and partly due to the fact that `emit_type_mismatch_suggestions` doesn't double check that its suggestions are actually compatible with the program other than trying to satisfy the type mismatch.
This adds a hack to make sure that at least the types are fully constrained, but I guess I could also rip out this logic altogether. There would be some sad diagnostics regressions though, such as `tests/ui/type/type-check/point-at-inference-4.rs`.
Fixes#116155
For a single impl candidate, try to unify it with error trait ref
This allows us to point out an exact type mismatch when there's only one applicable impl.
cc `@asquared31415`
r? `@estebank`
When these methods were originally written, I wasn't aware that
`newtype_index!` already supports addition with ordinary numbers, without
needing to unwrap and re-wrap.
If a BCB has more than one code region, those extra regions can now all be
stored in the same coverage statement, instead of being stored in additional
statements.
The concrete type `CoverageSpan` is no longer used outside of the `spans`
module.
This is a separate patch to avoid noise in the preceding patch that actually
encapsulates coverage spans.
By encapsulating the coverage spans in a struct, we can change the internal
representation without disturbing existing call sites. This will be useful for
grouping coverage spans by BCB.
This patch includes some changes that were originally in #115912, which avoid
the need for a particular test to deal with coverage spans at all.
(Comments/logs referring to `CoverageSpan` are updated in a subsequent patch.)
We're stabilizing `async fn` in trait (AFIT), but we have some
reservations about how people might use this in the definitions of
publicly-visible traits, so we're going to lint about that.
This is a bit of an odd lint for `rustc`. We normally don't lint just
to have people confirm that they understand how Rust works. But in
this one exceptional case, this seems like the right thing to do as
compared to the other plausible alternatives.
In this commit, we describe the nature of this odd lint.
