It is currently an enum and the `tts` and `idx` fields are repeated
across the two variants.
This commit splits it into a struct `Frame` and an enum `FrameKind`, to
factor out the duplication. The commit also renames `Frame::new` as
`Frame::new_delimited` and adds `Frame::new_sequence`. I.e. both
variants now have a constructor.
Control flow never gets past the end of the `ExpandResult::Retry` match
arm, due to the `span_bug` and the `continue`. Therefore, the code after
the match can only be reached from the `ExpandResult::Ready` arm.
This commit moves that code after the match into the
`ExpandResult::Ready` arm, avoiding the need for the `continue` in the
`ExpandResult::Retry` arm.
`ConstKind::Value` is the only variant where control flow leaves the
first match on `impl_ct.kind()`, so there is no need for a second match
on the same expression later on.
In the stabilization attempt of `#[unix_sigpipe = "sig_dfl"]`, a concern
was raised related to using a language attribute for the feature: Long
term, we want `fn lang_start()` to be definable by any crate, not just
libstd. Having a special language attribute in that case becomes
awkward.
So as a first step towards towards the next stabilization attempt, this
PR changes the `#[unix_sigpipe = "..."]` attribute to a compiler flag
`-Zon-broken-pipe=...` to remove that concern, since now the language
is not "contaminated" by this feature.
Another point was also raised, namely that the ui should not leak
**how** it does things, but rather what the **end effect** is. The new
flag uses the proposed naming. This is of course something that can be
iterated on further before stabilization.
Use `tcx.types.unit` instead of `Ty::new_unit(tcx)`
I don't think there is any need for the function, given that we can just access the `.types`, similarly to all other primitives?
remove extraneous note on `UnableToRunDsymutil` diagnostic
If I understand [this FIXME](1367827eac/compiler/rustc_macros/src/diagnostics/diagnostic.rs (L205)) correctly, it seems we don't yet validate subdiagnostics, so `#[note]` and co in the `#[derive(Diagnostic]` item could be out-of-sync with the fluent message, without causing compile errors.
It was the case for `rustc_codegen_ssa::errors::UnableToRunDsymutil`, causing the ICE in #124392.
I've grepped and scripted my way through most of our diagnostics structs and fluent bundles and the above was the only such extraneous `#[note]`/`#[note(name)]`/`#[help]`/`#[warning]` I could find, so hopefully there aren't many others like it.
I haven't checked if the opposite can happen, a `.note = ` in a fluent message that is lacking a corresponding `#[note]` on the struct and not causing an error, but maybe it's possible?
r? ``@davidtwco``
fixes#124392
always print nice 'std not found' error when std is not found
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3529
Arguably Miri is doing something odd by letting people create no-std sysroots for arbitrary targets -- but equally arguably, there's no good reason for rustc to special-case the host triple here. Being a non-host triple does not imply the target is a no-std target, after all.
Adjust `#[macro_export]`/doctest help suggestion for non_local_defs lint
This PR adjust the help suggestion of the `non_local_definitions` lint when encountering a `#[macro_export]` at top-level doctest.
So instead of a non-sentential help suggestion to move the `macro_rules!` up above the `rustdoc`-generated function. We now suggest users to declare their own function.
Fixes *(partially, needs backport)* #124534
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
Because this now always takes place at the start of the function, we can just
use the normal `alloca` method and then initialize each bitmap immediately.
This patch also moves bitmap setup out of the `mcdc_parameters` method, because
there is no longer any particular reason for it to be there.
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
Remove optionality from MoveData::base_local
This is an artifact from when Places could be based on statics and not just locals. Now, all move paths either are locals or have parents, so this doesn't need to return Option anymore.
[Refactor] Rename `Lint` and `LintGroup`'s `is_loaded` to `is_externally_loaded`
The field being named `is_loaded` was very confusing. Turns out it's true for lints that are registered by external tools like Clippy (I had to look at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116412 to know what the variable meant). So I renamed `is_loaded` to `is_externally_loaded` and added some docs.
coverage: Avoid hard-coded values when visiting logical ops
This is a tiny little thing that I noticed during the final review of #123409, and I didn't want to hold up the whole PR just for this.
Instead of separately hard-coding the operation being visited, we can get it from the match arm pattern by using an as-pattern.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
Mark unions non-const-propagatable in `KnownPanicsLint` without calling layout
Fixes#123710
The ICE occurs during the layout calculation of the union `InvalidTag` in #123710 because the following assert fails:5fe8b697e7/compiler/rustc_abi/src/layout.rs (L289-L292)
The layout calculation is invoked by `KnownPanicsLint` when it is trying to figure out which locals it can const prop. Since `KnownPanicsLint` is never actually going to const props unions thanks to PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121628 there's no point calling layout to check if it can. So in this fix I skip the call to layout and just mark the local non-const propagatable if it is a union.
Fix#124478 - offset_of! returns a temporary
This was due to the must_use() call. Adding HIR's `OffsetOf` to the must_use checking within the compiler avoids this issue while maintaining the lint output.
Fixes#124478. `@tgross35`
Use probes more aggressively in new solver
....so that we have the right candidate information when assembling trait and normalizes-to goals.
Also gets rid of misc probes.
r? lcnr
MCDC coverage: support nested decision coverage
#123409 provided the initial MCDC coverage implementation.
As referenced in #124144, it does not currently support "nested" decisions, like the following example :
```rust
fn nested_if_in_condition(a: bool, b: bool, c: bool) {
if a && if b || c { true } else { false } {
say("yes");
} else {
say("no");
}
}
```
Note that there is an if-expression (`if b || c ...`) embedded inside a boolean expression in the decision of an outer if-expression.
This PR proposes a workaround for this cases, by introducing a Decision context stack, and by handing several `temporary condition bitmaps` instead of just one.
When instrumenting boolean expressions, if the current node is a leaf condition (i.e. not a `||`/`&&` logical operator nor a `!` not operator), we insert a new decision context, such that if there are more boolean expressions inside the condition, they are handled as separate expressions.
On the codegen LLVM side, we allocate as many `temp_cond_bitmap`s as necessary to handle the maximum encountered decision depth.
