Currently, `Handler::fatal` returns `FatalError`. But `Session::fatal`
returns `!`, because it calls `Handler::fatal` and then calls `raise` on
the result. This inconsistency is unfortunate.
This commit changes `Handler::fatal` to do the `raise` itself, changing
its return type to `!`. This is safe because there are only two calls to
`Handler::fatal`, one in `rustc_session` and one in
`rustc_codegen_cranelift`, and they both call `raise` on the result.
`HandlerInner::fatal` still returns `FatalError`, so I renamed it
`fatal_no_raise` to emphasise the return type difference.
miri: support 'promising' alignment for symbolic alignment check
Then use that ability in `slice::align_to`, so that even with `-Zmiri-symbolic-alignment-check`, it no longer has to return spuriously empty "middle" parts.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3068
Rollup of 3 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #117869 ([rustdoc] Add highlighting for comments in items declaration)
- #118525 (coverage: Skip spans that can't be un-expanded back to the function body)
- #118574 (rustc_session: Address all `rustc::potential_query_instability` lints)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rustc_session: Address all `rustc::potential_query_instability` lints
Instead of allowing `rustc::potential_query_instability` on the whole crate we go over each lint and allow it individually if it is safe to do. Turns out all instances were safe to allow in this crate.
Part of #84447 which is **E-help-wanted**.
coverage: Skip spans that can't be un-expanded back to the function body
When we extract coverage spans from MIR, we try to "un-expand" them back to spans that are inside the function's body span.
In cases where that doesn't succeed, the current code just swaps in the entire body span instead. But that tends to result in coverage spans that are completely unrelated to the control flow of the affected code, so it's better to just discard those spans.
---
Extracted from #118305, since this is a general improvement that isn't specific to branch coverage.
---
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
[rustdoc] Add highlighting for comments in items declaration
Fixes#117555.
So after the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117643, the outcome was that having the comments in the item declaration at the same level (in term of color) as the rest of the code was actually a bit distracting and could be improved.
The current highlighting color for comments is "lighter" than the rest and I think it fits perfectly to improve the current situation. With this, we now have different "levels" which makes it easier to read and filter out what we want when reading the items declaration.
Here's a screenshot:
r? `@notriddle`
Provide structured suggestion for type mismatch in loop
We currently provide only a `help` message, this PR introduces the last two structured suggestions instead:
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> $DIR/issue-98982.rs:2:5
|
LL | fn foo() -> i32 {
| --- expected `i32` because of return type
LL | / for i in 0..0 {
LL | | return i;
LL | | }
| |_____^ expected `i32`, found `()`
|
note: the function expects a value to always be returned, but loops might run zero times
--> $DIR/issue-98982.rs:2:5
|
LL | for i in 0..0 {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this might have zero elements to iterate on
LL | return i;
| -------- if the loop doesn't execute, this value would never get returned
help: return a value for the case when the loop has zero elements to iterate on
|
LL ~ }
LL ~ /* `i32` value */
|
help: otherwise consider changing the return type to account for that possibility
|
LL ~ fn foo() -> Option<i32> {
LL | for i in 0..0 {
LL ~ return Some(i);
LL ~ }
LL ~ None
|
```
Fix#98982.
SIMD bitmasks: use 'round up to multiple of 8' rather than 'clamp to at least 8'
This should prepare us better for a future with non-power-of-2 vectors, if they ever happen.
Report errors in jobserver inherited through environment variables
This pr attempts to catch situations, when jobserver exists, but is not being inherited.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Instead of allowing `rustc::potential_query_instability` on the whole
crate we go over each lint and allow it individually if it is safe to
do. Turns out all instances were safe to allow in this crate.
`DefPathData::(ClosureExpr,ImplTrait)` are renamed to match `DefKind::(Closure,OpaqueTy)`.
`DefPathData::ImplTraitAssocTy` is replaced with `DefPathData::TypeNS(kw::Empty)` because both correspond to `DefKind::AssocTy`.
It's possible that introducing `(DefKind,DefPathData)::AssocOpaqueTy` could be a better solution, but that would be a much more invasive change.
Const generic parameters introduced for effects are moved from `DefPathData::TypeNS` to `DefPathData::ValueNS`, because constants are values.
`DefPathData` is no longer passed to `create_def` functions to avoid redundancy.
Because a macro invocation can expand to a never pattern, we can't rule
out a `arm!(),` arm at parse time. Instead we detect that case at
expansion time, if the macro tries to output a pattern followed by `=>`.
move exposed-provenance APIs into separate feature gate
We have already stated explicitly for all the 'exposed' functions that
> Using this method means that code is *not* following strict provenance rules.
However, they were part of the same feature gate and still described as part of the strict provenance experiment. Unfortunately, their semantics are much less clear and certainly nowhere near stabilization, so in preparation for an attempt to stabilize the strict provenance APIs, I suggest we split the things related to "exposed" into their own feature gate. I also used this opportunity to better explain how Exposed Provenance fits into the larger plan here: this is *one possible candidate* for `as` semantics, but we don't know if it is actually viable, so we can't really promise that it is equivalent to `as`. If it works out we probably want to make `as` equivalent to the 'exposed' APIs; if it doesn't, we will remove them again and try to find some other semantics for `as`.
