fix spans for removing `.await` on `for` expressions
We need to use a span with the outer syntax context of a desugared `for` expression to join it with the `.await` span.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117014
Point at assoc fn definition on type param divergence
When the number of type parameters in the associated function of an impl and its trait differ, we now *always* point at the trait one, even if it comes from a foreign crate. When it is local, we point at the specific params, when it is foreign, we point at the whole associated item.
Fix#69944.
Mention `into_iter` on borrow errors suggestions when appropriate
If we encounter a borrow error on `vec![1, 2, 3].iter()`, suggest `into_iter`.
Fix#68445.
Typo suggestion to change bindings with leading underscore
When encountering a binding that isn't found but has a typo suggestion for a binding with a leading underscore, suggest changing the binding definition instead of the use place.
Fix#60164.
When the number of type parameters in the associated function of an impl
and its trait differ, we now *always* point at the trait one, even if it
comes from a foreign crate. When it is local, we point at the specific
params, when it is foreign, we point at the whole associated item.
Fix#69944.
When encountering a binding that isn't found but has a typo suggestion
for a binding with a leading underscore, suggest changing the binding
definition instead of the use place.
Fix#60164.
Move where doc comment meant as comment check
The new place makes more sense and covers more cases beyond individual statements.
```
error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator, found doc comment `//!foo
--> $DIR/doc-comment-in-stmt.rs:25:22
|
LL | let y = x.max(1) //!foo
| ^^^^^^ expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator
|
help: add a space before `!` to write a regular comment
|
LL | let y = x.max(1) // !foo
| +
```
Fix#65329.
Add a test showing failing closure signature inference in new solver
Been thinking a bit about how to make this test pass... but we don't actually have any good tests exercising this behavior in the suite.
r? lcnr
The new place makes more sense and covers more cases beyond individual
statements.
```
error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator, found doc comment `//!foo
--> $DIR/doc-comment-in-stmt.rs:25:22
|
LL | let y = x.max(1) //!foo
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator
|
help: add a space before `!` to write a regular comment
|
LL | let y = x.max(1) // !foo
| +
```
Fix#65329.
Fix duplicate labels emitted in `render_multispan_macro_backtrace()`
This PR replaces the `Vec` used to store labels with an `FxIndexSet` in order to eliminate duplicates
Fixes#116836
Implement rustc part of RFC 3127 trim-paths
This PR implements (or at least tries to) [RFC 3127 trim-paths](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111540), the rustc part. That is `-Zremap-path-scope` with all of it's components/scopes.
`@rustbot` label: +F-trim-paths
Don't ICE when encountering unresolved regions in `fully_resolve`
We can encounter unresolved regions due to unconstrained impl lifetime arguments because `collect_return_position_impl_trait_in_trait_tys` runs before WF actually checks that the impl is well-formed.
Fixes#116525
Normalize alloc-id in tests.
AllocIds are globally numbered in a rustc invocation. This makes them very sensitive to changes unrelated to what is being tested. This commit normalizes them by renumbering, in order of appearance in the output.
The renumbering allows to keep the identity, that a simple `allocN` wouldn't. This is useful when we have memory dumps.
cc `@saethlin`
r? `@oli-obk`
Special case iterator chain checks for suggestion
When encountering method call chains of `Iterator`, check for trailing `;` in the body of closures passed into `Iterator::map`, as well as calls to `<T as Clone>::clone` when `T` is a type param and `T: !Clone`.
Fix#9082.
Add new simpler and more explicit syntax for check-cfg
<details>
<summary>
Old proposition (before the MCP)
</summary>
This PR adds a new simpler and more explicit syntax for check-cfg. It consist of two new form:
- `exhaustive(names, values)`
- `configure(name, "value1", "value2", ... "valueN")`
The preview forms `names(...)` and `values(...)` have implicit meaning that are not strait-forward. In particular `values(foo)`&`values(bar)` and `names(foo, bar)` are not equivalent which has created [some confusions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98080).
Also the `names()` and `values()` form are not clear either and again created some confusions where peoples believed that `values()`&`values(foo)` could be reduced to just `values(foo)`.
To fix that the two new forms are made to be explicit and simpler. See the table of correspondence:
- `names()` -> `exhaustive(names)`
- `values()` -> `exhaustive(values)`
- `names(foo)` -> `exhaustive(names)`&`configure(foo)`
- `values(foo)` -> `configure(foo)`
- `values(feat, "foo", "bar")` -> `configure(feat, "foo", "bar")`
- `values(foo)`&`values(bar)` -> `configure(foo, bar)`
- `names()`&`values()`&`values(my_cfg)` -> `exhaustive(names, values)`&`configure(my_cfg)`
Another benefits of the new syntax is that it allow for further options (like conditional checking for --cfg, currently always on) without syntax change.
The two previous forms are deprecated and will be removed once cargo and beta rustc have the necessary support.
</details>
This PR is the first part of the implementation of [MCP636 - Simplify and improve explicitness of the check-cfg syntax](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/636).
## New `cfg` form
It introduces the new [`cfg` form](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/636) and deprecate the other two:
```
rustc --check-cfg 'cfg(name1, ..., nameN, values("value1", "value2", ... "valueN"))'
```
## Default built-in names and values
It also changes the default for the built-in names and values checking.
- Built-in values checking would always be activated as long as a `--check-cfg` argument is present
- Built-in names checking would always be activated as long as a `--check-cfg` argument is present **unless** if any `cfg(any())` arg is passed
~~**Note: depends on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111068 but is reviewable (last two commits)!**~~
Resolve https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/636
r? `@petrochenkov`
