Cleanup lower_generics_mut and make span be the bound itself
Closes#86298 (supersedes those changes)
r? `@cjgillot` since you reviewed the other PR
(Used wrong branch for #89338)
Do not suggest importing inaccessible items
Fixes#88472. For this example:
```rust
mod a {
struct Foo;
}
mod b {
type Bar = Foo;
}
```
rustc currently emits:
```
error[E0412]: cannot find type `Foo` in this scope
--> test.rs:6:16
|
6 | type Bar = Foo;
| ^^^ not found in this scope
|
help: consider importing this struct
|
6 | use a::Foo;
|
```
this is incorrect, as applying this suggestion leads to
```
error[E0603]: struct `Foo` is private
--> test.rs:6:12
|
6 | use a::Foo;
| ^^^ private struct
|
note: the struct `Foo` is defined here
--> test.rs:2:5
|
2 | struct Foo;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
With my changes, I get:
```
error[E0412]: cannot find type `Foo` in this scope
--> test.rs:6:16
|
6 | type Bar = Foo;
| ^^^ not found in this scope
|
= note: this struct exists but is inaccessible:
a::Foo
```
As for the wildcard mentioned in #88472, I would argue that the warning is actually correct, since the import _is_ unused. I think the real issue is the wrong suggestion, which I have fixed here.
Suggest similarly named associated items in trait impls
Fix#85942
Previously, the compiler didn't suggest similarly named associated items unlike we do in many situations. This patch adds such diagnostics for associated functions, types, and constants.
Previously, the compiler didn't suggest similarly named associated items
unlike we do in many situations. This patch adds such diagnostics for
associated functions, types and constants.
The `Option<Module>` version is supported for the case where we don't know whether the `DefId` refers to a module or not.
Non-local traits and enums are also correctly found now.
Encode spans relative to the enclosing item
The aim of this PR is to avoid recomputing queries when code is moved without modification.
MCP at https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/443
This is achieved by :
1. storing the HIR owner LocalDefId information inside the span;
2. encoding and decoding spans relative to the enclosing item in the incremental on-disk cache;
3. marking a dependency to the `source_span(LocalDefId)` query when we translate a span from the short (`Span`) representation to its explicit (`SpanData`) representation.
Since all client code uses `Span`, step 3 ensures that all manipulations
of span byte positions actually create the dependency edge between
the caller and the `source_span(LocalDefId)`.
This query return the actual absolute span of the parent item.
As a consequence, any source code motion that changes the absolute byte position of a node will either:
- modify the distance to the parent's beginning, so change the relative span's hash;
- dirty `source_span`, and trigger the incremental recomputation of all code that
depends on the span's absolute byte position.
With this scheme, I believe the dependency tracking to be accurate.
For the moment, the spans are marked during lowering.
I'd rather do this during def-collection,
but the AST MutVisitor is not practical enough just yet.
The only difference is that we attach macro-expanded spans
to their expansion point instead of the macro itself.
Remove `Session.used_attrs` and move logic to `CheckAttrVisitor`
Instead of updating global state to mark attributes as used,
we now explicitly emit a warning when an attribute is used in
an unsupported position. As a side effect, we are to emit more
detailed warning messages (instead of just a generic "unused" message).
`Session.check_name` is removed, since its only purpose was to mark
the attribute as used. All of the callers are modified to use
`Attribute.has_name`
Additionally, `AttributeType::AssumedUsed` is removed - an 'assumed
used' attribute is implemented by simply not performing any checks
in `CheckAttrVisitor` for a particular attribute.
We no longer emit unused attribute warnings for the `#[rustc_dummy]`
attribute - it's an internal attribute used for tests, so it doesn't
mark sense to treat it as 'unused'.
With this commit, a large source of global untracked state is removed.
Instead of updating global state to mark attributes as used,
we now explicitly emit a warning when an attribute is used in
an unsupported position. As a side effect, we are to emit more
detailed warning messages (instead of just a generic "unused" message).
`Session.check_name` is removed, since its only purpose was to mark
the attribute as used. All of the callers are modified to use
`Attribute.has_name`
Additionally, `AttributeType::AssumedUsed` is removed - an 'assumed
used' attribute is implemented by simply not performing any checks
in `CheckAttrVisitor` for a particular attribute.
We no longer emit unused attribute warnings for the `#[rustc_dummy]`
attribute - it's an internal attribute used for tests, so it doesn't
mark sense to treat it as 'unused'.
With this commit, a large source of global untracked state is removed.
Fix use placement for suggestions near main.
This fixes an edge case for the suggestion to add a `use`. When running with `--test`, the `main` function will be annotated with an `#[allow(dead_code)]` attribute. The `UsePlacementFinder` would end up using the dummy span of that synthetic attribute. If there are top-level inner attributes, this would place the `use` in the wrong position. The solution here is to ignore attributes with dummy spans.
In the process of working on this, I discovered that the `use_suggestion_placement` test was broken. `UsePlacementFinder` is unaware of active attributes. Attributes like `#[derive]` don't exist in the AST since they are removed. Fixing that is difficult, since the AST does not retain enough information. I considered trying to place the `use` towards the top of the module after any `extern crate` items, but I couldn't find a way to get a span for the start of a module block (the `mod` span starts at the `mod` keyword, and it seems tricky to find the spot just after the opening bracket and past inner attributes). For now, I just put some comments about the issue. This appears to have been a known issue in #44215 where the test for it was introduced, and the fix seemed to be deferred to later.
