Add a lint against never type fallback affecting unsafe code
~~I'm not very happy with the code quality... `VecGraph` not allowing you to get predecessors is very annoying. This should work though, so there is that.~~ (ended up updating `VecGraph` to support getting predecessors)
~~First few commits are from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123934https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123980~~
This is a workaround for #122758, but it's not clear why 1.79 requires a
more extensive amount of no_inline than the previous release. Seems like
there's something relatively subtle happening here.
Rewrite select (in the new solver) to use a `ProofTreeVisitor`
We can use a proof tree visitor rather than collecting and recomputing all the nested goals ourselves.
Based on #124415
Cleanup: Replace item names referencing GitHub issues or error codes with something more meaningful
**lcnr** in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117164#pullrequestreview-1969935387:
> […] while I know that there's precendent to name things `Issue69420`, I really dislike this as it requires looking up the issue to figure out the purpose of such a variant. Actually referring to the underlying issue, e.g. `AliasMayNormToUncovered` or whatever and then linking to the issue in a doc comment feels a lot more desirable to me. We should ideally rename all the functions and enums which currently use issue numbers.
I've grepped through `compiler/` like crazy and think that I've found all instances of this pattern.
However, I haven't renamed `compute_2229_migrations_*`. Should I?
The first commit introduces an abhorrent and super long name for an item because naming is hard but also scary looking / unwelcoming names are good for things related to temporary-ish backcompat hacks. I'll let you discover it by yourself.
Contains a bit of drive-by cleanup and a diag migration bc that was the simplest option.
r? lcnr or compiler
Lazily normalize inside trait ref during orphan check & consider ty params in rigid alias types to be uncovered
Fixes#99554, fixesrust-lang/types-team#104.
Fixes#114061.
Supersedes #100555.
Tracking issue for the future compatibility lint: #124559.
r? lcnr
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`
Mention Both HRTB and Generic Lifetime Param in `E0637` documentation
The compiler (rustc 1.77.0) error for `and_without_explicit_lifetime()` in the erroneous code example suggests using a HRTB. But, the corrected example uses an explicit lifetime parameter.
This PR fixes it so that the documentation and the compiler suggestion for error code `E0637` are consistent with each other.
coverage: Split off `mappings.rs` from `spans.rs` and `from_mir.rs`
Originally, `spans.rs` was mainly concerned with extracting and post-processing spans from MIR, so that they could be used for block coverage instrumentation.
Over time it has organically expanded to include more responsibilities, especially relating to branch coverage and MC/DC coverage, that don't really fit its current name.
This PR therefore takes all the extra code that is *not* part of the old span-refinement engine, and moves it out into a new `mappings.rs` file.
---
No functional changes. I have deliberately avoided doing any follow-up (such as renaming types or functions), because this particular change is very rot-prone, and I want it to be as simple and self-contained as possible.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
because we are already marking unions `NoPropagation` in
`CanConstProp::check()`. That is enough to prevent any attempts
at const propagating unions and this second check is not needed.
Also improve a comment in `CanConstProp::check()`
Split mcdc code to a sub module of coverageinfo
A further work from #124217 . I have made relatively large changes when working on #124278 so that it would better split them from `coverageinfo.rs` to avoid potential troubling merge work with improved branch coverage by `@Zalathar` .
Besides `BlockMarkerGenerator` is added to avoid ownership problems (mostly needed for following change of #124278 )
All code changes are done in [a37d737a](a3d737a086) while the second commit just renames the file.
cc `@RenjiSann` `@Zalathar`
This will impact your current work.
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #124519 (adapt a codegen test for llvm 19)
- #124524 (Add StaticForeignItem and use it on ForeignItemKind)
- #124540 (Give proof tree visitors the ability to instantiate nested goals directly)
- #124543 (codegen tests: Tolerate `range()` qualifications in enum tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Give proof tree visitors the ability to instantiate nested goals directly
Useful when we want to look at the nested goals but not necessarily visit them (e.g. in select).
r? lcnr
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`
coverage: Replace boolean options with a `CoverageLevel` enum
After #123409, and some discussion at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79649#issuecomment-2042093553 and #124120, it became clear to me that we should have a unified concept of “coverage level”, instead of having several separate boolean flags that aren't actually independent.
This PR therefore introduces a `CoverageLevel` enum, to replace the existing boolean flags for `branch` and `mcdc`.
The `no-branch` value (for `-Zcoverage-options`) has been renamed to `block`, instructing the compiler to only instrument for block coverage, with no branch coverage or MD/DC instrumentation.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
cc `@ZhuUx` `@Lambdaris` `@RenjiSann`
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
