Remove `MaybeForgetReturn` suggestion
#115196 implemented a suggestion to add a missing `return` when there is an ambiguity error, when that ambiguity error could be constrained by the return type of the function.
I initially reviewed it and thought it could be useful; however, looking back at that code now, I feel like it's a bit too much of a hack to be worth keeping around in typeck, especially given how rare it's expected to fire in practice. This is especially true because it depends on `StashKey::MaybeForgetReturn`, which is only stashed when we have *Sized* obligation ambiguity errors. Let's remove it for now.
I'd like to note that it's basically impossible to get this suggestion to apply in its current state except for what I'd consider somewhat artificial examples, involving no generic trait bounds. For example, it's not triggered for:
```rust
struct W<T>(T);
fn bar<T: Default>() -> W<T> { todo!() }
fn foo() -> W<i32> {
if true {
bar();
}
W(0)
}
```
Nor is it triggered for:
```
fn foo() -> i32 {
if true {
Default::default();
}
0
}
```
It's basically only triggered iff there's only one ambiguity error on the type, which is `Sized`.
Generally, suggesting something that affects control flow is a pretty dramatic suggestion; therefore, both the accuracy and precision of this diagnostic should be pretty high.
One other, somewhat unrelated observation is that this might be using stashed diagnostics incorrectly (or at least unnecessarily). Stashed diagnostics are used when error detection is fragmented over several major stages of the compiler, like a parse or resolver error which later can be recovered in typeck. However, this one is a bit different since it is fully handled within typeck -- perhaps that suggests that if this were to be reimplemented, it wouldn't need to be so complicated of an implementation.
When a `?` operation requires an `Into` conversion with additional bounds (like having a concrete error but wanting to convert to a trait object), we handle it speficically and provide the same kind of information we give other `?` related errors.
```
error[E0277]: `?` couldn't convert the error: `E: std::error::Error` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/bad-question-mark-on-trait-object.rs:5:13
|
LL | fn foo() -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
| -------------------------------------- required `E: std::error::Error` because of this
LL | Ok(bar()?)
| ^ the trait `std::error::Error` is not implemented for `E`
|
= note: the question mark operation (`?`) implicitly performs a conversion on the error value using the `From` trait
= note: required for `Box<dyn std::error::Error>` to implement `From<E>`
```
Avoid talking about `FromResidual` when other more relevant information is being given, particularly from `rust_on_unimplemented`.
Consider comments and bare delimiters the same as an "empty line" for purposes of hiding rendered code output of long multispans. This results in more aggressive shortening of rendered output without losing too much context, specially in `*.stderr` tests that have "hidden" comments.
For following:
```rust
struct A;
impl A {
fn test4(&self) {
let mut _file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
//~^ ERROR the `?` operator can only be used in a method
}
```
Suggest:
```rust
impl A {
fn test4(&self) -> Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
let mut _file = File::create("foo.txt")?;
//~^ ERROR the `?` operator can only be used in a method
Ok(())
}
}
```
For #125997
Fix a error suggestion for E0121 when using placeholder _ as return types on function signature.
Recommit after refactoring based on comment:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126017#issuecomment-2189149361
But when changing return type's lifetime to `ReError` will affect the subsequent borrow check process and cause test11 in typeck_type_placeholder_item.rs to lost E0515 message.
```rust
fn test11(x: &usize) -> &_ {
//~^ ERROR the placeholder `_` is not allowed within types on item signatures for return types
&x //~ ERROR cannot return reference to function parameter(this E0515 msg will disappear)
}
```
fixes#125488
r? ``@pnkfelix``
Recommit after refactoring based on comment:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126017#issuecomment-2189149361
But when changing return type's lifetime to `ReError` will affect the subsequent borrow check process and cause test11 in typeck_type_placeholder_item.rs to lost E0515 message.
```rust
fn test11(x: &usize) -> &_ {
//~^ ERROR the placeholder `_` is not allowed within types on item signatures for return types
&x //~ ERROR cannot return reference to function parameter(this E0515 msg will disappear)
}
```
