It's a better name, and lets "active features" refer to the features
that are active in a particular program, due to being declared or
enabled by the edition.
The commit also renames `Features::enabled` as `Features::active` to
match this; I changed my mind and have decided that "active" is a little
better thatn "enabled" for this, particularly because a number of
pre-existing comments use "active" in this way.
Finally, the commit renames `Status::Stable` as `Status::Accepted`, to
match `ACCEPTED_FEATURES`.
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.
const_eval: allow function pointer signatures containing &mut T in const contexts
potentially fixes#114994
We utilize a `TypeVisitor` here in order to more easily handle control flow.
- In the event the typekind the Visitor sees is a function pointer, we skip over it
- However, otherwise we do one of two things:
- If we find a mutable reference, check it, then continue visiting types
- If we find any other type, continue visiting types
This means we will check if the function pointer _itself_ is mutable, but not if any of the types _within_ are.
Show more information when multiple `impl`s apply
- When there are `impl`s without type params, show only those (to avoid showing overly generic `impl`s).
```
error[E0283]: type annotations needed
--> $DIR/multiple-impl-apply.rs:34:9
|
LL | let y = x.into();
| ^ ---- type must be known at this point
|
note: multiple `impl`s satisfying `_: From<Baz>` found
--> $DIR/multiple-impl-apply.rs:14:1
|
LL | impl From<Baz> for Bar {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
LL | impl From<Baz> for Foo {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: required for `Baz` to implement `Into<_>`
help: consider giving `y` an explicit type
|
LL | let y: /* Type */ = x.into();
| ++++++++++++
```
- Lower the importance of `T: Sized`, `T: WellFormed` and coercion errors, to prioritize more relevant errors. The pre-existing deduplication logic deals with hiding redundant errors better that way, and we show errors with more metadata that is useful to the user.
- Show `<SelfTy as Trait>::assoc_fn` suggestion in more cases.
```
error[E0790]: cannot call associated function on trait without specifying the corresponding `impl` type
--> $DIR/cross-return-site-inference.rs:38:16
|
LL | return Err(From::from("foo"));
| ^^^^^^^^^^ cannot call associated function of trait
|
help: use a fully-qualified path to a specific available implementation
|
LL | return Err(</* self type */ as From>::from("foo"));
| +++++++++++++++++++ +
```
Fix#88284.
In `report_fullfillment_errors` push back `T: Sized`, `T: WellFormed`
and coercion errors to the end of the list. The pre-existing
deduplication logic eliminates redundant errors better that way, keeping
the resulting output with fewer errors than before, while also having
more detail.
Partially outline code inside the panic! macro
This outlines code inside the panic! macro in some cases. This is split out from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115562 to exclude changes to rustc.
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?
