rustc: use more correct span data in for loop desugaring
Fixes#82462
Before:
help: consider adding semicolon after the expression so its temporaries are dropped sooner, before the local variables declared by the block are dropped
|
LL | for x in DroppingSlice(&*v).iter(); {
| +
After:
help: consider adding semicolon after the expression so its temporaries are dropped sooner, before the local variables declared by the block are dropped
|
LL | };
| +
This seems like a reasonable fix: since the desugared "expr_drop_temps_mut" contains the entire desugared loop construct, its span should contain the entire loop construct as well.
Fix table in docblocks
"Overwrite" of #88702.
Instead of adding a z-index to the sidebar (which only hides the issue, doesn't fix it), I wrap `<table>` elements inside a `<div>` and limit all chidren of `.docblock` elements' width to prevent having the scrollbar on the whole doc block.
Thanks `@nbdd0121` for `overflow-x: auto;`. ;)
r? `@notriddle`
Rustdoc coverage fields count
Follow-up of #88688.
Instead of requiring enum tuple variant fields and tuple struct fields to be documented, we count them if they are documented, otherwise we don't include them in the count.
r? `@Manishearth`
Emit proper errors when on missing closure braces
This commit focuses on emitting clean errors for the following syntax
error:
```
Some(42).map(|a|
dbg!(a);
a
);
```
Previous implementation tried to recover after parsing the closure body
(the `dbg` expression) by replacing the next `;` with a `,`, which made
the next expression belong to the next function argument. As such, the
following errors were emitted (among others):
- the semicolon token was not expected,
- a is not in scope,
- Option::map is supposed to take one argument, not two.
This commit allows us to gracefully handle this situation by adding
giving the parser the ability to remember when it has just parsed a
closure body inside a function call. When this happens, we can treat the
unexpected `;` specifically and try to parse as much statements as
possible in order to eat the whole block. When we can't parse statements
anymore, we generate a clean error indicating that the braces are
missing, and return an ExprKind::Err.
Closes#88065.
r? `@estebank`
This commit focuses on emitting clean errors for the following syntax
error:
```
Some(42).map(|a|
dbg!(a);
a
);
```
Previous implementation tried to recover after parsing the closure body
(the `dbg` expression) by replacing the next `;` with a `,`, which made
the next expression belong to the next function argument. As such, the
following errors were emitted (among others):
- the semicolon token was not expected,
- a is not in scope,
- Option::map is supposed to take one argument, not two.
This commit allows us to gracefully handle this situation by adding
giving the parser the ability to remember when it has just parsed a
closure body inside a function call. When this happens, we can treat the
unexpected `;` specifically and try to parse as much statements as
possible in order to eat the whole block. When we can't parse statements
anymore, we generate a clean error indicating that the braces are
missing, and return an ExprKind::Err.
This reverts commit 059b68dd67.
Note that this was manually adjusted to retain some of the refactoring
introduced by commit 059b68dd67, so that it could
likewise retain the correction introduced in commit
5b4bc05fa5
Split rustc_mir
The `rustc_mir` crate is the second largest in the compiler.
This PR splits it up into 5 crates:
- rustc_borrowck;
- rustc_const_eval;
- rustc_mir_dataflow;
- rustc_mir_transform;
- rustc_monomorphize.
Add a regression test for #88649
I noticed that #88649 does not have a regression test, so I add one in this PR.
The test fails with this without #88678:
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> /checkout/src/test/ui/consts/issue-88649.rs:13:52
|
LL | Foo::Variant1(x) | Foo::Variant2(x) if x => {}
| ^ StorageLive on a local that was already live
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0080`.
```
Improve diagnostics for unary plus operators (#88276)
This pull request improves the diagnostics emitted on parsing a unary plus operator. See #88276.
Before:
```
error: expected expression, found `+`
--> src/main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let x = +1;
| ^ expected expression
```
After:
```
error: leading `+` is not supported
--> main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let x = +1;
| ^
| |
| unexpected `+`
| help: try removing the `+`
```
