Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126618 (Mark assoc tys live only if the corresponding trait is live)
- #126746 (Deny `use<>` for RPITITs)
- #126868 (not use offset when there is not ends with brace)
- #126884 (Do not ICE when suggesting dereferencing closure arg)
- #126893 (Eliminate the distinction between PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN precedence level)
- #126915 (Don't suggest awaiting in closure patterns)
- #126943 (De-duplicate all consecutive native libs regardless of their options)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Deny `use<>` for RPITITs
Precise capturing `use<>` syntax is currently a no-op on RPITITs, since GATs have no variance, so all captured lifetimes are captured invariantly.
We don't currently *need* to support `use<>` on RPITITs, since `use<>` is initially intended for migrating RPIT *overcaptures* from edition 2021->2024, but since RPITITs currently capture all in-scope lifetimes, we'll never need to write `use<>` on an RPITIT.
Eventually, though, it would be desirable to support precise capturing on RPITITs, since RPITITs overcapturing by default can be annoying to some folks. But let's separate that (which will likely require some delicate types team work for adding variances to GATs and adjusting the refinement rules) from the stabilization of the feature for edition 2024.
r? oli-obk cc ``@traviscross``
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123432
Place tail expression behind terminating scope
This PR implements #123739 so that we can do further experiments in nightly.
A little rewrite has been applied to `for await` lowering. It was previously `unsafe { Pin::unchecked_new(into_async_iter(..)) }`. Under the edition 2024 rule, however, `into_async_iter` gets dropped at the end of the `unsafe` block. This presumably the first Edition 2024 migration rule goes by hoisting `into_async_iter(..)` into `match` one level above, so it now looks like the following.
```rust
match into_async_iter($iter_expr) {
ref mut iter => match unsafe { Pin::unchecked_new(iter) } {
...
}
}
```
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
Parse unsafe attributes
Initial parse implementation for #123757
This is the initial work to parse unsafe attributes, which is represented as an extra `unsafety` field in `MetaItem` and `AttrItem`. There's two areas in the code where it appears that parsing is done manually and not using the parser stuff, and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to thread the change there.
Rename HIR `TypeBinding` to `AssocItemConstraint` and related cleanup
Rename `hir::TypeBinding` and `ast::AssocConstraint` to `AssocItemConstraint` and update all items and locals using the old terminology.
Motivation: The terminology *type binding* is extremely outdated. "Type bindings" not only include constraints on associated *types* but also on associated *constants* (feature `associated_const_equality`) and on RPITITs of associated *functions* (feature `return_type_notation`). Hence the word *item* in the new name. Furthermore, the word *binding* commonly refers to a mapping from a binder/identifier to a "value" for some definition of "value". Its use in "type binding" made sense when equality constraints (e.g., `AssocTy = Ty`) were the only kind of associated item constraint. Nowadays however, we also have *associated type bounds* (e.g., `AssocTy: Bound`) for which the term *binding* doesn't make sense.
---
Old terminology (HIR, rustdoc):
```
`TypeBinding`: (associated) type binding
├── `Constraint`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: (associated) equality constraint (?)
├── `Ty`: (associated) type binding
└── `Const`: associated const equality (constraint)
```
Old terminology (AST, abbrev.):
```
`AssocConstraint`
├── `Bound`
└── `Equality`
├── `Ty`
└── `Const`
```
New terminology (AST, HIR, rustdoc):
```
`AssocItemConstraint`: associated item constraint
├── `Bound`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: associated item equality constraint OR associated item binding (for short)
├── `Ty`: associated type equality constraint OR associated type binding (for short)
└── `Const`: associated const equality constraint OR associated const binding (for short)
```
r? compiler-errors
The starting point for this was identical comments on two different
fields, in `ast::VariantData::Struct` and `hir::VariantData::Struct`:
```
// FIXME: investigate making this a `Option<ErrorGuaranteed>`
recovered: bool
```
I tried that, and then found that I needed to add an `ErrorGuaranteed`
to `Recovered::Yes`. Then I ended up using `Recovered` instead of
`Option<ErrorGuaranteed>` for these two places and elsewhere, which
required moving `ErrorGuaranteed` from `rustc_parse` to `rustc_ast`.
This makes things more consistent, because `Recovered` is used in more
places, and there are fewer uses of `bool` and
`Option<ErrorGuaranteed>`. And safer, because it's difficult/impossible
to set `recovered` to `Recovered::Yes` without having emitted an error.
Remove braces when fixing a nested use tree into a single item
[Back in 2019](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/56645) I added rustfix support for the `unused_imports` lint, to automatically remove them when running `cargo fix`. For the most part this worked great, but when removing all but one childs of a nested use tree it turned `use foo::{Unused, Used}` into `use foo::{Used}`. This is slightly annoying, because it then requires you to run `rustfmt` to get `use foo::Used`.
This PR automatically removes braces and the surrouding whitespace when all but one child of a nested use tree are unused. To get it done I had to add the span of the nested use tree to the AST, and refactor a bit the code I wrote back then.
A thing I noticed is, there doesn't seem to be any `//@ run-rustfix` test for fixing the `unused_imports` lint. I created a test in `tests/suggestions` (is that the right directory?) that for now tests just what I added in the PR. I can followup in a separate PR to add more tests for fixing `unused_lints`.
This PR is best reviewed commit-by-commit.
Some hir cleanups
It seemed odd to not put `AnonConst` in the arena, compared with the other types that we did put into an arena. This way we can also give it a `Span` without growing a lot of other HIR data structures because of the extra field.
r? compiler
Remove many `#[macro_use] extern crate foo` items
This requires the addition of more `use` items, which often make the code more verbose. But they also make the code easier to read, because `#[macro_use]` obscures where macros are defined.
r? `@fee1-dead`
Add StaticForeignItem and use it on ForeignItemKind
This is in preparation for unsafe extern blocks that adds a safe variant for functions inside extern blocks.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@compiler-errors`
Add a note to the ArbitraryExpressionInPattern error
The current "arbitrary expressions aren't allowed in patterns" error is confusing, as it fires for code where it *looks* like a pattern but the compiler still treats it as an expression. That this is due to the `:expr` fragment specifier forcing the expression-ness property on the code.
In the test suite, the "arbitrary expressions aren't allowed in patterns" error can only be found in combination with macro_rules macros that force expression-ness of their content, namely via `:expr` metavariables. I also can't come up with cases where there would be an expression instead of a pattern, so I think it's always coming from an `:expr`.
In order to make the error less confusing, this adds a note explaining the weird `:expr` fragment behaviour.
Fixes#99380
