`E0229`: Suggest Moving Type Constraints to Type Parameter Declaration
Fixes#113073
This PR suggests `impl<T: Bound> Trait<T> for Foo` when finding `impl Trait<T: Bound> for Foo`. Tangentially, it also improves a handful of other error messages.
It accomplishes this in two steps:
1. Check if constrained arguments and parameter names appear in the same order and delay emitting "incorrect number of generic arguments" error because it can be confusing for the programmer to see `0 generic arguments provided` when there are `n` constrained generic arguments.
2. Inside `E0229`, suggest declaring the type parameter right after the `impl` keyword by finding the relevant impl block's span for type parameter declaration. This also handles lifetime declarations correctly.
Also, the multi part suggestion doesn't use the fluent error mechanism because translating all the errors to fluent style feels outside the scope of this PR. I will handle it in a separate PR if this gets approved.
Urls to docs in rust_hir
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
For E0277 suggest adding `Result` return type for function when using QuestionMark `?` in the body.
Adding suggestions for following function in E0277.
```rust
fn main() {
let mut _file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
}
```
to
```rust
fn main() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
let mut _file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
return Ok(());
}
```
According to the issue #125997, only the code examples in the issue are targeted, but the issue covers a wider range of situations.
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Revert: create const block bodies in typeck via query feeding
as per the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125806#discussion_r1622563948
It was a mistake to try to shoehorn const blocks and some specific anon consts into the same box and feed them during typeck. It turned out not simplifying anything (my hope was that we could feed `type_of` to start avoiding the huge HIR matcher, but that didn't work out), but instead making a few things more fragile.
reverts the const-block-specific parts of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124650
`@bors` rollup=never had a small perf impact previously
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125846
r? `@compiler-errors`
Rename HIR `TypeBinding` to `AssocItemConstraint` and related cleanup
Rename `hir::TypeBinding` and `ast::AssocConstraint` to `AssocItemConstraint` and update all items and locals using the old terminology.
Motivation: The terminology *type binding* is extremely outdated. "Type bindings" not only include constraints on associated *types* but also on associated *constants* (feature `associated_const_equality`) and on RPITITs of associated *functions* (feature `return_type_notation`). Hence the word *item* in the new name. Furthermore, the word *binding* commonly refers to a mapping from a binder/identifier to a "value" for some definition of "value". Its use in "type binding" made sense when equality constraints (e.g., `AssocTy = Ty`) were the only kind of associated item constraint. Nowadays however, we also have *associated type bounds* (e.g., `AssocTy: Bound`) for which the term *binding* doesn't make sense.
---
Old terminology (HIR, rustdoc):
```
`TypeBinding`: (associated) type binding
├── `Constraint`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: (associated) equality constraint (?)
├── `Ty`: (associated) type binding
└── `Const`: associated const equality (constraint)
```
Old terminology (AST, abbrev.):
```
`AssocConstraint`
├── `Bound`
└── `Equality`
├── `Ty`
└── `Const`
```
New terminology (AST, HIR, rustdoc):
```
`AssocItemConstraint`: associated item constraint
├── `Bound`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: associated item equality constraint OR associated item binding (for short)
├── `Ty`: associated type equality constraint OR associated type binding (for short)
└── `Const`: associated const equality constraint OR associated const binding (for short)
```
r? compiler-errors
The starting point for this was identical comments on two different
fields, in `ast::VariantData::Struct` and `hir::VariantData::Struct`:
```
// FIXME: investigate making this a `Option<ErrorGuaranteed>`
recovered: bool
```
I tried that, and then found that I needed to add an `ErrorGuaranteed`
to `Recovered::Yes`. Then I ended up using `Recovered` instead of
`Option<ErrorGuaranteed>` for these two places and elsewhere, which
required moving `ErrorGuaranteed` from `rustc_parse` to `rustc_ast`.
This makes things more consistent, because `Recovered` is used in more
places, and there are fewer uses of `bool` and
`Option<ErrorGuaranteed>`. And safer, because it's difficult/impossible
to set `recovered` to `Recovered::Yes` without having emitted an error.
Some hir cleanups
It seemed odd to not put `AnonConst` in the arena, compared with the other types that we did put into an arena. This way we can also give it a `Span` without growing a lot of other HIR data structures because of the extra field.
r? compiler
Check `x86_64` size assertions on `aarch64`, too
(Context: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Checking.20size.20assertions.20on.20aarch64.3F)
Currently the compiler has around 30 sets of `static_assert_size!` for various size-critical data structures (e.g. various IR nodes), guarded by `#[cfg(all(target_arch = "x86_64", target_pointer_width = "64"))]`.
(Presumably this cfg avoids having to maintain separate size values for 32-bit targets and unusual 64-bit targets. Apparently it may have been necessary before the i128/u128 alignment changes, too.)
This is slightly incovenient for people on aarch64 workstations (e.g. Macs), because the assertions normally aren't checked until we push to a PR. So this PR adds `aarch64` to the `#[cfg(..)]` guarding all of those assertions in the compiler.
---
Implemented with a simple find/replace. Verified by manually inspecting each `static_assert_size!` in `compiler/`, and checking that either the replacement succeeded, or adding aarch64 wouldn't have been appropriate.
Suggest associated type bounds on problematic associated equality bounds
Fixes#105056. TL;DR: Suggest `Trait<Ty: Bound>` on `Trait<Ty = Bound>` in Rust >=2021.
~~Blocked on #122055 (stabilization of `associated_type_bounds`), I'd say.~~ (merged)
Experimental feature postfix match
This has a basic experimental implementation for the RFC postfix match (rust-lang/rfcs#3295, #121618). [Liaison is](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Postfix.20Match.20Liaison/near/423301844) ```@scottmcm``` with the lang team's [experimental feature gate process](https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/blob/master/src/how_to/experiment.md).
This feature has had an RFC for a while, and there has been discussion on it for a while. It would probably be valuable to see it out in the field rather than continue discussing it. This feature also allows to see how popular postfix expressions like this are for the postfix macros RFC, as those will take more time to implement.
It is entirely implemented in the parser, so it should be relatively easy to remove if needed.
This PR is split in to 5 commits to ease review.
1. The implementation of the feature & gating.
2. Add a MatchKind field, fix uses, fix pretty.
3. Basic rustfmt impl, as rustfmt crashes upon seeing this syntax without a fix.
4. Add new MatchSource to HIR for Clippy & other HIR consumers
