Added diagnostic for pin! macro in addition to Box::pin if Unpin isn't implemented
I made a PR earlier, but accidentally renamed a branch and that deleted the PR... sorry for the duplicate
Currently, if an operation on `Pin<T>` is performed that requires `T` to implement `Unpin`, the diagnostic suggestion is to use `Box::pin` ("note: consider using `Box::pin`").
This PR suggests pin! as well, as that's another valid way of pinning a value, and avoids a heap allocation. Appropriate diagnostic suggestions were included to highlight the difference in semantics (local pinning for pin! vs non-local for Box::pin).
Fixes#109964
Use span of placeholders in format_args!() expansion.
`format_args!("{}", x)` expands to something that contains `Argument::new_display(&x)`. That entire expression was generated with the span of `x`.
After this PR, `&x` uses the span of `x`, but the `new_display` call uses the span of the `{}` placeholder within the format string. If an implicitly captured argument was used like in `format_args!("{x}")`, both use the span of the `{x}` placeholder.
This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/109576, and also allows for more improvements to similar diagnostics in the future, since the usage of `x` can now be traced to the exact `{}` placeholder that required it to be `Display` (or `Debug` etc.)
Pass the right HIR back from `get_fn_decl`
Fixes#109232
Makes sure that the `fn_id: HirId` that we pass to `suggest_missing_return_type` matches up with the `fn_decl: hir::FnDecl` that we pass to it, so the late-bound vars that we fetch from the former match up with the types in the latter...
This HIR suggestion code really needs a big refactor. I've tried to do it in the past (a couple of attempts), but it's a super tangled mess. It really shouldn't be passing around things like `hir::Node` and just deal with `LocalDefId`s everywhere... Anyways, I'd rather fix this ICE, now.
Emit diagnostic when calling methods on the unit type in method chains
Fixes#104204.
What this PR does: If a method is not found somewhere in a call chain, we check if we called earlier a method with signature `(&mut T, ...) -> ()`. If this is the case then we emit a diagnostic message.
For example given input:
```
vec![1, 2, 3].into_iter().collect::<Vec<i32>>().sort_by_key(|i| i).sort();
```
the current output is:
```
error[E0599]: no method named `sort` found for unit type `()` in the current scope
--> hello.rs:3:72
|
3 | vec![1, 2, 3].into_iter().collect::<Vec<i32>>().sort_by_key(|i| i).sort();
| ^^^^ method not found in `()`
```
after this PR it will be:
```
error[E0599]: no method named `sort` found for unit type `()` in the current scope
--> ./hello.rs:3:72
|
3 | vec![1, 2, 3].into_iter().collect::<Vec<i32>>().sort_by_key(|i| i).sort();
| ^^^^ method not found in `()`
|
note: method `sort_by_key` modifies its receiver in-place, it is not meant to be used in method chains.
--> ./hello.rs:3:53
|
3 | vec![1, 2, 3].into_iter().collect::<Vec<i32>>().sort_by_key(|i| i).sort();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ this call modifies its receiver in-place
```
If no method is found when checking method call, we check if we called a method with signature (&mut T, ...) -> (). If this is the case then we emit a diagnostic message
Remove `identity_future` indirection
This was previously needed because the indirection used to hide some unexplained lifetime errors, which it turned out were related to the `min_choice` algorithm.
Removing the indirection also solves a couple of cycle errors, large moves and makes async blocks support the `#[track_caller]`annotation.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104826.
This was previously needed because the indirection used to hide some unexplained lifetime errors, which it turned out were related to the `min_choice` algorithm.
Removing the indirection also solves a couple of cycle errors, large moves and makes async blocks support the `#[track_caller]` annotation.
Consider `tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr`,
the error message where it gives additional notes about where the associated
type is defined, and how the dead code lint doesn't have an article,
like in `tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr`. They don't have
articles, so it seems unnecessary to have one here.
