Format core and std macro rules, removing needless surrounding blocks
Many of the asserting and printing macros in `core` and `std` are written with prehistoric-looking formatting, like this:
335ffbfa54/library/std/src/macros.rs (L96-L101)
In modern Rust style this would conventionally be written as follows instead, always using braces and a trailing semicolon on the macro arms:
af53809c87/library/std/src/macros.rs (L98-L105)
Getting rid of the unneeded braces inside the expansion reduces extraneous indentation in macro-expanded code. For example:
```rust
println!("repro {}", true);
```
```rust
// before:
{
::std::io::_print(
::core::fmt::Arguments::new_v1(
&["repro ", "\n"],
&[::core::fmt::ArgumentV1::new_display(&true)],
),
);
};
```
```rust
// after:
::std::io::_print(
::core::fmt::Arguments::new_v1(
&["repro ", "\n"],
&[::core::fmt::ArgumentV1::new_display(&true)],
),
);
```
This makes the order of the output always consistent:
1. Place of the `match` missing arms
2. The `enum` definition span
3. The structured suggestion to add a fallthrough arm
Fixes#92074
This allows us to insert an `ExprKind::Err` when an invalid expression
is used in a literal pattern, preventing later stages of compilation
from seeing an unexpected literal pattern.
Fix stack overflow in `usefulness.rs`
Fix#88747
Applied the suggestion from `@nbdd0121,` not sure if this has any drawbacks. The first call to `ensure_sufficient_stack` is not needed to fix the test case, but I added it to be safe.
Print associated types on opaque `impl Trait` types
This PR generalizes #91021, printing associated types for all opaque `impl Trait` types instead of just special-casing for future.
before:
```
error[E0271]: type mismatch resolving `<impl Iterator as Iterator>::Item == u32`
```
after:
```
error[E0271]: type mismatch resolving `<impl Iterator<Item = usize> as Iterator>::Item == u32`
```
---
Questions:
1. I'm kinda lost in binders hell with this one. Is all of the `rebind`ing necessary?
2. Is there a map collection type that will give me a stable iteration order? Doesn't seem like TraitRef is Ord, so I can't just sort later..
3. I removed the logic that suppresses printing generator projection types. It creates outputs like this [gist](https://gist.github.com/compiler-errors/d6f12fb30079feb1ad1d5f1ab39a3a8d). Should I put that back?
4. I also added spaces between traits, `impl A+B` -> `impl A + B`. I quite like this change, but is there a good reason to keep it like that?
r? ````@estebank````
Add test cases for unstable variants
Add test cases for doc hidden variants
Move is_doc_hidden to method on TyCtxt
Add unstable variants test to reachable-patterns ui test
Rename reachable-patterns -> omitted-patterns
Normalize after substituting via `field.ty()`
Back in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/72476 I hadn't understood where the problem was coming from, and only worked around the issue. What happens is that calling `field.ty()` on a field of a generic struct substitutes the appropriate generics but doesn't normalize the resulting type.
As a consumer of types I'm surprised that one would substitute without normalizing, feels like a footgun, so I added a comment.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89393.
Add an intermediate representation to exhaustiveness checking
The exhaustiveness checking algorithm keeps deconstructing patterns into a `Constructor` and some `Fields`, but does so a bit all over the place. This PR introduces a new representation for patterns that already has that information, so we only compute it once at the start.
I find this makes code easier to follow. In particular `DeconstructedPat::specialize` is a lot simpler than what happened before, and more closely matches the description of the algorithm. I'm also hoping this could help for the project of librarifying exhaustiveness for rust_analyzer since it decouples the algorithm from `rustc_middle::Pat`.
Now `Fields` is just a `Vec` of patterns, with some extra info on the
side to reconstruct patterns when needed. This emphasizes that this
extra info is not central to the algorithm.
* Highlight the whole pattern if it has no fields
* Highlight the whole definition if it has no fields
* Only highlight the pattern name if the pattern is multi-line
* Determine whether a pattern is multi-line based on distance from name
to last field, rather than first field
