Fix last `let_chains` blocker
In order to forbid things like `let x = (let y = 1);` or `if let a = 1 && { let x = let y = 1; } {}`, the parser **HAS** to know the context of `let`.
This context thing is not a surprise in the parser because you can see **a lot** of ad hoc fixes mixing parsing logic with validation logic creating code that looks more like spaghetti with tomato sauce.
To make things even greater, a new ad hoc fix was added to only allow `let`s in a valid `let_chains` context by checking the previously processed token. This was the only solution I could think of and believe me, I thought about it for a long time 👍
In the long term, it should be preferable to segregate different responsibilities or create a more robust and cleaner parser framework.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94927
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53667
Do not error during method probe on `Sized` predicates for types that aren't the method receiver
Fixes#61525
This is safe even though we're skipping an error because we end up confirming the method, which means we're still checking the `Sized` predicate in the end. It just means that we don't emit an erroneous message as below:
```
error: the `query` method cannot be invoked on a trait object
--> src/lib.rs:14:11
|
14 | 1.query::<dyn ToString>("")
| ^^^^^
|
= note: another candidate was found in the following trait, perhaps add a `use` for it:
`use crate::Example;`
```
Also fixes erroneously suggesting the same trait over again, as seen in the `issue-35976.rs` UI test.
Don't rerun the build script for the compiler each time on non-windows platforms
In practice, this doesn't matter very much because the script takes ~no time to run.
But this makes `CARGO_LOG=info` easier to read, and theoretically saves a few milliseconds.
Fix sized check ICE in asm check
Fixes (beta nominated, so doesn't close) #99122
1. Moves a check for unresolved inference variables to _before_ other checks that could possibly ICE. We're not changing behavior here, just doing the same thing earlier in the function.
2. Erases region variables in sized check (which are not resolved at this point) because rustc will also ICE when region vars are passed to a query which does not canonicalize them.
Fix duplicated type annotation suggestion
Before, there was more or less duplicated suggestions to add type hints.
Fix by clearing more generic suggestions when a more specific suggestion
is possible.
This fixes#93506 .
Create fresh lifetime parameters for bare fn trait too
The current code fails to account for the equivalence between `dyn FnMut(&mut u8)` and bare `FnMut(&mut u8)`, and treated them differently.
This PR introduces a special case for `Fn` traits, which are always fully resolved.
Fixes#98616Fixes#98726
This will require a beta-backport, as beta contains that bug.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Mention similarly named associated type even if it's not clearly in supertrait
Due to query cycle avoidance, we sometimes restrict the candidates in `complain_about_assoc_type_not_found` too much so that we can't detect typo replacements from just supertraits.
This creates a more general note of the existence of a similarly named associated type from _all_ visible traits when possible.
Fixes#55673
Implement `SourceMap::is_span_accessible`
This patch adds `SourceMap::is_span_accessible` and replaces `span_to_snippet(span).is_ok()` and `span_to_snippet(span).is_err()` with it. This removes a `&str` to `String` conversion.
explain doc comments in macros a bit
Open to suggestions on improving this... macro parsing is very foreign to me.
Should we have a structured suggestion to turn them into their regular non-doc comments?
Fixes#92846Fixes#97850
In practice, this doesn't matter very much because the script takes ~no time to run.
But this makes `CARGO_LOG=info` easier to read, and theoretically saves a few milliseconds.
promote placeholder bounds to 'static obligations
In NLL, when we are promoting a bound out from a closure, if we have a requirement that `T: 'a` where `'a` is in a higher universe, we were previously ignoring that, which is totally wrong. We should be promoting those constraints to `'static`, since universes are not expressible across closure boundaries.
Fixes#98693
~~(Marking as WIP because I'm still running tests, haven't add the new test, etc)~~
r? ``@jackh726``
proc_macro: Fix expand_expr expansion of bool literals
Previously, the expand_expr method would expand bool literals as a
`Literal` token containing a `LitKind::Bool`, rather than as an `Ident`.
This is not a valid token, and the `LitKind::Bool` case needs to be
handled seperately.
Tests were added to more deeply compare the streams in the expand-expr
test suite to catch mistakes like this in the future.
Partially stabilize const_slice_from_raw_parts
This doesn't stabilize methods working on mutable pointers.
This pull request continues from #94946.
Pinging `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` this because I use `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable`. I believe this is justifiable as it's already possible to use `slice::from_raw_parts` in stable by abusing `transmute`. The stable alternative to this would be to provide a stable const implementation of `std::ptr::from_raw_parts` (as it can already be implemented in stable).
```rust
use std::mem;
#[repr(C)]
struct Slice<T> {
data: *const T,
len: usize,
}
fn main() {
let data: *const i32 = [1, 2, 3, 4].as_ptr();
let len = 4;
println!("{:?}", unsafe {
mem::transmute::<Slice<i32>, &[i32]>(Slice { data, len })
});
}
```
`@rustbot` modify labels: +T-libs-api
don't use `commit_if_ok` during `higher_ranked_sub`
This snapshot doesn't really do anything useful for us, especially once we deal with placeholder outlive bounds during trait solving.
I guess that currently the idea is that `higher_ranked_sub` could cause a later `leak_check` to fail even if the combine operation isn't actually relevant. But really, using combine outside of snapshot and ignoring its result is wrong anyways, as it can constrain inference variables.
r? rust-lang/types
don't allow ZST in ScalarInt
There are several indications that we should not ZST as a ScalarInt:
- We had two ways to have ZST valtrees, either an empty `Branch` or a `Leaf` with a ZST in it.
`ValTree::zst()` used the former, but the latter could possibly arise as well.
- Likewise, the interpreter had `Immediate::Uninit` and `Immediate::Scalar(Scalar::ZST)`.
- LLVM codegen already had to special-case ZST ScalarInt.
So I propose we stop using ScalarInt to represent ZST (which are clearly not integers). Instead, we can add new ZST variants to those types that did not have other variants which could be used for this purpose.
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98831. Only the commits starting from "don't allow ZST in ScalarInt" are new.
r? `@oli-obk`
There are several indications that we should not ZST as a ScalarInt:
- We had two ways to have ZST valtrees, either an empty `Branch` or a `Leaf` with a ZST in it.
`ValTree::zst()` used the former, but the latter could possibly arise as well.
- Likewise, the interpreter had `Immediate::Uninit` and `Immediate::Scalar(Scalar::ZST)`.
- LLVM codegen already had to special-case ZST ScalarInt.
So instead add new ZST variants to those types that did not have other variants
which could be used for this purpose.
Clarify MIR semantics of storage statements
Seems worthwhile to start closing out some of the less controversial open questions about MIR semantics. Hopefully this is fairly non-controversial - it's what we implement already, and I see no reason to do anything more restrictive. cc ``@tmiasko`` who commented on this when it was discussed in the original PR that added these docs.
