Fix#62660
If the explicitly given type of a `self` parameter fails to parse correctly, we need to propagate the error rather than dropping it and causing an ICE.
Fixes#62660.
Make VaListImpl<'f> invariant over the 'f lifetime
After doing some research on variance and going back to look at `VaList` and `VaListImpl`, I realized that `VaList<'a, 'f>` is invariant over the `'f` lifetime (and covariant over `'a`), but `VaListImpl<'f>` isn't invariant but probably should be. This patch makes `VaListImpl<'f>` invariant over `'f`.
r? @eddyb
cc @dlrobertson
Remove never_type feature requirement for exhaustive patterns
I **think** this resolves#51221
At least for me, it doesn't ICE anymore and all tests are still passing, so LGTM
Do not emit type errors after parse error in last statement of block
When recovering from a parse error inside a block, do not emit type
errors generating on that block's recovered return expression.
Fix#57383.
If the explicitly given type of a `self` parameter fails to parse correctly,
we need to propagate the error rather than dropping it and causing an ICE.
Fixes#62660.
rustc_codegen_ssa: fix range check in codegen_get_discr.
Fixes#61696, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61696#issuecomment-505473018 for more details.
In short, I had wanted to use `x - a <= b - a` to check whether `x` is in `a..=b` (as it's 1 comparison instead of 2 *and* `b - a` is guaranteed to fit in the same data type, while `b` itself might not), but I ended up with `x - a + c <= b - a + c` instead, because `x - a + c` was the final value needed.
That latter comparison is equivalent to checking that `x` is in `(a - c)..=b`, i.e. it also includes `(a - c)..a`, not just `a..=b`, so if `c` is not `0`, it will cause false positives.
This presented itself as the non-niche ("dataful") variant sometimes being treated like a niche variant, in the presence of uninhabited variants (which made `c`, aka the index of the first niche variant, arbitrarily large).
r? @nagisa, @rkruppe or @oli-obk
Make struct_tail normalize when possible
As noted in commit message: this replaces the existing methods to extract the struct tail(s) with new entry points that make the handling of normalization explicit.
Most of the places that call `struct_tail` are during codegen, post type-checking, and therefore they can get away with using `tcx.normalize_erasing_regions` (this is the entry point `struct_tail_erasing_lifetimes`)
For other cases that may arise, one can use the core method, which is parameterized over the normalization `Ty -> Ty` closure (`struct_tail_with_normalize`).
Or one can use the trivial entry point that does not normalization (`struct_tail_without_normalization`)
----
I spent a little while trying to make a test that exposed the bug via `impl Trait` rather than a projection, but I failed to find something that tripped up the current nightly `rustc`.
* I have *not* spent any time trying to make tests that trip up the other places where `struct_tail` was previously being called. While I do think the task of making such tests could be worthwhile, I am simply running out of time. (Its also possible that the layout code is always the first point called, and thus it may be pointless to try to come up with such tests.)
I also spent a little time discussing with @eddyb where this code should live. They suggested moving `struct_tail` and its sibling `struct_lockstep_tails` to the `LayoutCx`. But in the interest of time, I have left that refactoring (which may be questionable at this point) to a follow-up task.
----
Fix#60431
Replace unsafe_destructor_blind_to_params with may_dangle
This PR will completely remove support for `#[unsafe_destructor_blind_to_params]` attribute,
which is deprecated in #38970 by `[may_dangle]` unsafe attribute.
Closes#34761
rustc_mir: follow FalseUnwind's real_target edge in qualify_consts.
As far as I can tell, this was accidentally omitted from #47802.
Fixes#62272.
r? @matthewjasper or @nikomatsakis
Coherence test when a generic type param has a default value from an associated type
A followup on #61400.
Before `re_rebalance_coherence`, this fails to compile (even though it should be accepted).
`re_rebalance_coherence` had no direct test for this, and I wanted to (a) make sure it doesn't regress in the future and (b) get it on record that this is actually the intended behavior.
