Lint `non_exhaustive_omitted_patterns` by columns
This is a rework of the `non_exhaustive_omitted_patterns` lint to make it more consistent. The intent of the lint is to help consumers of `non_exhaustive` enums ensure they stay up-to-date with all upstream variants. This rewrite fixes two cases we didn't handle well before:
First, because of details of exhaustiveness checking, the following wouldn't lint `Enum::C` as missing:
```rust
match Some(x) {
Some(Enum::A) => {}
Some(Enum::B) => {}
_ => {}
}
```
Second, because of the fundamental workings of exhaustiveness checking, the following would treat the `true` and `false` cases separately and thus lint about missing variants:
```rust
match (true, x) {
(true, Enum::A) => {}
(true, Enum::B) => {}
(false, Enum::C) => {}
_ => {}
}
```
Moreover, it would correctly not lint in the case where the pair is flipped, because of asymmetry in how exhaustiveness checking proceeds.
A drawback is that it no longer makes sense to set the lint level per-arm. This will silently break the lint for current users of it (but it's behind a feature gate so that's ok).
The new approach is now independent of the exhaustiveness algorithm; it's a separate pass that looks at patterns column by column. This is another of the motivations for this: I'm glad to move it out of the algorithm, it was akward there.
This PR is almost identical to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111651. cc `@eholk` who reviewed it at the time. Compared to then, I'm more confident this is the right approach.
This allows coverage information to be attached to the function as a whole when
appropriate, instead of being smuggled through coverage statements in the
function's basic blocks.
As an example, this patch moves the `function_source_hash` value out of
individual `CoverageKind::Counter` statements and into the per-function info.
When synthesizing unused functions for coverage purposes, the absence of this
info is taken to indicate that a function was not eligible for coverage and
should not be synthesized.
use `PatKind::Error` when an ADT const value has violation
Fixes#115599
Since the [to_pat](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111913/files#diff-6d8d99538aca600d633270051580c7a9e40b35824ea2863d9dda2c85a733b5d9R126-R155) behavior has been changed in the #111913 update, the kind of `inlined_const_ast_pat` has transformed from `PatKind::Leaf { pattern: Pat { kind: Wild, ..} } ` to `PatKind::Constant`. This caused a scenario where there are no matched candidates, leading to a testing of the candidates. This process ultimately attempts to test the string const, triggering the `bug!` invocation finally.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Format all the let-chains in compiler crates
Since rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 has landed, soon we will have support for formatting let-chains (as soon as rustfmt syncs and beta gets bumped).
This PR applies the changes [from master rustfmt to rust-lang/rust eagerly](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/122651-general/topic/out.20formatting.20of.20prs/near/374997516), so that the next beta bump does not have to deal with a 200+ file diff and can remain concerned with other things like `cfg(bootstrap)` -- #113637 was a pain to land, for example, because of let-else.
I will also add this commit to the ignore list after it has landed.
The commands that were run -- I'm not great at bash-foo, but this applies rustfmt to every compiler crate, and then reverts the two crates that should probably be formatted out-of-tree.
```
~/rustfmt $ ls -1d ~/rust/compiler/* | xargs -I@ cargo run --bin rustfmt -- `@/src/lib.rs` --config-path ~/rust --edition=2021 # format all of the compiler crates
~/rust $ git checkout HEAD -- compiler/rustc_codegen_{gcc,cranelift} # revert changes to cg-gcc and cg-clif
```
cc `@rust-lang/rustfmt`
r? `@WaffleLapkin` or `@Nilstrieb` who said they may be able to review this purely mechanical PR :>
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` and `@petrochenkov,` who had some thoughts on the order of operations with big formatting changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95262#issue-1178993801. I think the situation has changed since then, given that let-chains support exists on master rustfmt now, and I'm fairly confident that this formatting PR should land even if *bootstrap* rustfmt doesn't yet format let-chains in order to lessen the burden of the next beta bump.
exhaustiveness: Rework constructor splitting
`SplitWildcard` was pretty opaque. I replaced it with a more legible abstraction: `ConstructorSet` represents the set of constructors for patterns of a given type. This clarifies responsibilities: `ConstructorSet` handles one clear task, and diagnostic-related shenanigans can be done separately.
I'm quite excited, I had has this in mind for years but could never quite introduce it. This opens up possibilities, including type-specific optimisations (like using a `FxHashSet` to collect enum variants, which had been [hackily attempted some years ago](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76918)), my one-pass rewrite (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116042), and future librarification.
Fix overflow checking in range patterns
When a range pattern contains an overflowing literal, if we're not careful we might not notice the overflow and use the wrapped value. This makes for confusing error messages because linting against overflowing literals is only done in a later pass. So when a range is invalid we check for overflows to provide a better error.
This check didn't use to handle negative types; this PR fixes that. First commit adds tests, second cleans up without changing behavior, third does the fix.
EDIT: while I was at it, I fixed a small annoyance about the span of the overflow lint on negated literals.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94239
Don't store lazyness in `DefKind::TyAlias`
1. Don't store lazyness of a type alias in its `DefKind`, but instead via a query.
2. This allows us to treat type aliases as lazy if `#[feature(lazy_type_alias)]` *OR* if the alias contains a TAIT, rather than having checks for both in separate parts of the codebase.
r? `@oli-obk` cc `@fmease`
rename mir::Constant -> mir::ConstOperand, mir::ConstKind -> mir::Const
Also, be more consistent with the `to/eval_bits` methods... we had some that take a type and some that take a size, and then sometimes the one that takes a type is called `bits_for_ty`.
Turns out that `ty::Const`/`mir::ConstKind` carry their type with them, so we don't need to even pass the type to those `eval_bits` functions at all.
However this is not properly consistent yet: in `ty` we have most of the methods on `ty::Const`, but in `mir` we have them on `mir::ConstKind`. And indeed those two types are the ones that correspond to each other. So `mir::ConstantKind` should actually be renamed to `mir::Const`. But what to do with `mir::Constant`? It carries around a span, that's really more like a constant operand that appears as a MIR operand... it's more suited for `syntax.rs` than `consts.rs`, but the bigger question is, which name should it get if we want to align the `mir` and `ty` types? `ConstOperand`? `ConstOp`? `Literal`? It's not a literal but it has a field called `literal` so it would at least be consistently wrong-ish...
``@oli-obk`` any ideas?
