Refactor AST trait bound modifiers
Instead of having two types to represent trait bound modifiers in the parser / the AST (`parser::ty::BoundModifiers` & `ast::TraitBoundModifier`), only to map one to the other later, just use `parser::ty::BoundModifiers` (moved & renamed to `ast::TraitBoundModifiers`).
The struct type is more extensible and easier to deal with (see [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119099/files#r1430749981) and [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119099/files#r1430752116) for context) since it more closely models what it represents: A compound of two kinds of modifiers, constness and polarity. Modeling this as an enum (the now removed `ast::TraitBoundModifier`) meant one had to add a new variant per *combination* of modifier kind, which simply isn't scalable and which lead to a lot of explicit non-DRY matches.
NB: `hir::TraitBoundModifier` being an enum is fine since HIR doesn't need to worry representing invalid modifier kind combinations as those get rejected during AST validation thereby immensely cutting down the number of possibilities.
Properly reject `default` on free const items
Fixes#117791.
Technically speaking, this is a breaking change but I doubt it will lead to any real-world regressions (maybe in some macro-trickery crates?). Doing a crater run probably isn't worth it.
detects redundant imports that can be eliminated.
for #117772 :
In order to facilitate review and modification, split the checking code and
removing redundant imports code into two PR.
Deny more `~const` trait bounds
thereby fixing a family of ICEs (delayed bugs) for `feature(const_trait_impl, effects)` code.
As discussed
r? `@fee1-dead`
Trying to use C-variadics in a const function would previously fail with
an error like "destructor of `VaListImpl<'_>` cannot be evaluated at
compile-time".
Add an explicit check for const C-variadics to provide a clearer error:
"functions cannot be both `const` and C-variadic".
Previously, any associated function could have `~const` trait bounds on
generic parameters, which could lead to ICEs when these bounds were used
on associated functions of non-`#[const_trait] trait` or
non-`impl const` blocks.
Includes changes as per @fee1-dead's comments in #116210.
There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second
version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid
uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later
passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid
location, sometimes causing ICEs.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a
valid location.
- Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let
expressions.
Parse unnamed fields and anonymous structs or unions (no-recovery)
It is part of #114782 which implements #49804. Only parse anonymous structs or unions in struct field definition positions.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Anonymous structs or unions are only allowed in struct field
definitions.
Co-authored-by: carbotaniuman <41451839+carbotaniuman@users.noreply.github.com>
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #111741 (Use `ObligationCtxt` in custom type ops)
- #111840 (Expose more information in `get_body_with_borrowck_facts`)
- #111876 (Roll compiler_builtins to 0.1.92)
- #111912 (Use `Option::is_some_and` and `Result::is_ok_and` in the compiler )
- #111915 (libtest: Improve error when missing `-Zunstable-options`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Remove `..` from return type notation
`@nikomatsakis` and I decided that using `..` in the return-type notation syntax is probably overkill.
r? `@eholk` since you reviewed the last one
Since this is piggybacking now totally off of a pre-existing syntax (parenthesized generics), let me know if you need any explanation of the logic here, since it's a bit more complicated now.
Update `error [E0449]: unnecessary visibility qualifier` to be more clear
This updates the error message `error[E0449]: unnecessary visibility qualifier` by clearly indicating that visibility qualifiers already inherit their visibility from a parent item. The error message previously implied that the qualifiers were permitted, which is not the case anymore.
Resolves#109822.
