Previously, any associated function could have `~const` trait bounds on
generic parameters, which could lead to ICEs when these bounds were used
on associated functions of non-`#[const_trait] trait` or
non-`impl const` blocks.
Includes changes as per @fee1-dead's comments in #116210.
It had a really confusing name by shadowing the previous name, which has
caused issues in the past where people added their new syntax in the
legacy location.
This makes it clear.
There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second
version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid
uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later
passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid
location, sometimes causing ICEs.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a
valid location.
- Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let
expressions.
Parse unnamed fields and anonymous structs or unions (no-recovery)
It is part of #114782 which implements #49804. Only parse anonymous structs or unions in struct field definition positions.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Anonymous structs or unions are only allowed in struct field
definitions.
Co-authored-by: carbotaniuman <41451839+carbotaniuman@users.noreply.github.com>
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #111741 (Use `ObligationCtxt` in custom type ops)
- #111840 (Expose more information in `get_body_with_borrowck_facts`)
- #111876 (Roll compiler_builtins to 0.1.92)
- #111912 (Use `Option::is_some_and` and `Result::is_ok_and` in the compiler )
- #111915 (libtest: Improve error when missing `-Zunstable-options`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Implement negative bounds for internal testing purposes
Implements partial support the `!` negative polarity on trait bounds. This is incomplete, but should allow us to at least be able to play with the feature.
Not even gonna consider them as a public-facing feature, but I'm implementing them because would've been nice to have in UI tests, for example in #110671.
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
Add `rustc_fluent_macro` to decouple fluent from `rustc_macros`
Fluent, with all the icu4x it brings in, takes quite some time to compile. `fluent_messages!` is only needed in further downstream rustc crates, but is blocking more upstream crates like `rustc_index`. By splitting it out, we allow `rustc_macros` to be compiled earlier, which speeds up `x check compiler` by about 5 seconds (and even more after the needless dependency on `serde_json` is removed from `rustc_data_structures`).
Fluent, with all the icu4x it brings in, takes quite some time to
compile. `fluent_messages!` is only needed in further downstream rustc
crates, but is blocking more upstream crates like `rustc_index`. By
splitting it out, we allow `rustc_macros` to be compiled earlier, which
speeds up `x check compiler` by about 5 seconds (and even more after the
needless dependency on `serde_json` is removed from
`rustc_data_structures`).
Split out a separate feature gate for impl trait in associated types
in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107645 it was decided that we'll take a new route for type alias impl trait. The exact route isn't clear yet, so while I'm working on implementing some of these proposed changes (e.g. in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110010) to be able to experiment with them, I will also work on stabilizing another sugar version first: impl trait in associated types. Similarly I'll look into creating feature gates for impl trait in const/static types.
This PR does nothing but split the feature gate, so that you need to enable a different feature gate for
```rust
impl Trait for Type {
type Assoc = impl SomeTrait;
}
```
than what you need for `type Foo = impl SomeTrait;`
Remove `..` from return type notation
`@nikomatsakis` and I decided that using `..` in the return-type notation syntax is probably overkill.
r? `@eholk` since you reviewed the last one
Since this is piggybacking now totally off of a pre-existing syntax (parenthesized generics), let me know if you need any explanation of the logic here, since it's a bit more complicated now.
Update `error [E0449]: unnecessary visibility qualifier` to be more clear
This updates the error message `error[E0449]: unnecessary visibility qualifier` by clearly indicating that visibility qualifiers already inherit their visibility from a parent item. The error message previously implied that the qualifiers were permitted, which is not the case anymore.
Resolves#109822.
Emit feature error for parenthesized generics in associated type bounds
We don't actually do AST->HIR lowering with some `-Zunpretty` flags, so it's not correct to just delay a bug instead of emitting a feature error.
Some diagnostics regressed because of the new errors, but oh well. 🤷Fixes#109898
