Moving more build-pass tests to check-pass
One or two tests became build-pass without the FIXME because they really
needed build-pass (were failing without it).
Helps with #62277
---
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/rust-lang/rust/71340)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
During development, a function could have a return type set that is a
bare trait object by accident. We already suggest using either a boxed
trait object or `impl Trait` if the return paths will allow it. We now
do so too when there are *no* return paths or they all resolve to `!`.
We still don't handle cases where the trait object is *not* the entirety
of the return type gracefully.
Use `PredicateObligation`s instead of `Predicate`s
Keep more information about trait binding failures. Use more specific spans by pointing at bindings that introduce obligations.
Subset of #69709.
r? @eddyb
non-exhastive diagnostic: add note re. scrutinee type
This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67259 by adding a note:
```
= note: the matched value is of type &[i32]
```
to non-exhaustive pattern matching errors.
r? @varkor @estebank
They used to be covered by `optin_builtin_traits` but negative impls
are now applicable to all traits, not just auto traits.
This also adds docs in the unstable book for the current state of auto traits.
Store idents for `DefPathData` into crate metadata
Previously, we threw away the `Span` associated with a definition's
identifier when we encoded crate metadata, causing us to lose location
and hygiene information.
We now store the identifier's `Span` in a side table, which gets encoded
into the crate metadata. When we decode items from the metadata, we
combine the name and span back into an `Ident`.
This improves the output of several tests, which previously had messages
suppressed due to dummy spans.
This is a prerequisite for #68686, since throwing away a `Span` means
that we lose hygiene information.
Tweak output for invalid negative impl errors
Follow up to #69722. Tweak negative impl errors emitted in the HIR:
```
error[E0192]: invalid negative impl
--> $DIR/E0192.rs:9:6
|
LL | impl !Trait for Foo { }
| ^^^^^^
|
= note: negative impls are only allowed for auto traits, like `Send` and `Sync`
```
Increase verbosity when suggesting subtle code changes
Do not suggest changes that are actually quite small inline, to minimize the likelihood of confusion.
Fix#69243.
Previously, we threw away the `Span` associated with a definition's
identifier when we encoded crate metadata, causing us to lose location
and hygiene information.
We now store the identifier's `Span` in the crate metadata.
When we decode items from the metadata, we combine
the name and span back into an `Ident`.
This improves the output of several tests, which previously had messages
suppressed due to dummy spans.
This is a prerequisite for #68686, since throwing away a `Span` means
that we lose hygiene information.
Expansion-driven outline module parsing
After this PR, the parser will not do any conditional compilation or loading of external module files when `mod foo;` is encountered. Instead, the parser only leaves `mod foo;` in place in the AST, with no items filled in. Expansion later kicks in and will load the actual files and do the parsing. This entails that the following is now valid:
```rust
#[cfg(FALSE)]
mod foo {
mod bar {
mod baz; // `foo/bar/baz.rs` doesn't exist, but no error!
}
}
```
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64197.
r? @petrochenkov
Add long error code explanation message for E0637
Reference issue [#61137](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61137)
To incorporate a long error description for E0637, I have made the necessary modification to error_codes.rs and added error_codes/E0637.md, and blessed the relevant .stderror files. ~~, however when I build rustc stage 1, I am unable to make `$ rustc --explain E0637` work even though rustc appears to be able to call up the long error explanations for other errors. I wanted to guarantee this would work before moving on the blessing the various ui tests that have been affected. @GuillaumeGomez Do you know the most likely reason(s) why this would be the case?~~
Update: `$ rustc --explain E0637` works now.
