Calculate visibilities once in resolve
Then use them through a query based on resolver outputs.
Item visibilities were previously calculated in three places - initially in `rustc_resolve`, then in `rustc_privacy` during type privacy checkin, and then in `rustc_metadata` during metadata encoding.
The visibility logic is not entirely trivial, especially for things like constructors or enum variants, and all of it was duplicated.
This PR deduplicates all the visibility calculations, visibilities are determined once during early name resolution and then stored in `ResolverOutputs` and are later available through `tcx` as a query `tcx.visibility(def_id)`.
(This query existed previously, but only worked for other crates.)
Some special cases (e.g. visibilities for closure types, which are needed for type privacy checking) are not processed in resolve, but deferred and performed directly in the query instead.
Improve wording of "cannot multiply" type error
For example, if you had this code:
fn foo(x: i32, y: f32) -> f32 {
x * y
}
You would get this error:
error[E0277]: cannot multiply `f32` to `i32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x * y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 * f32`
|
= help: the trait `Mul<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
However, that's not usually how people describe multiplication. People
usually describe multiplication like how the division error words it:
error[E0277]: cannot divide `i32` by `f32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x / y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 / f32`
|
= help: the trait `Div<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
So that's what this change does. It changes this:
error[E0277]: cannot multiply `f32` to `i32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x * y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 * f32`
|
= help: the trait `Mul<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
To this:
error[E0277]: cannot multiply `i32` by `f32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x * y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 * f32`
|
= help: the trait `Mul<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
Trait predicate ambiguities are not always in `Self`
When reporting ambiguities in trait predicates, the compiler incorrectly assumed the ambiguity was always in the type the trait should be implemented on, and never the generic parameters of the trait. This caused silly suggestions for predicates like `<KnownType as Trait<_>>`, such as giving explicit types to completely unrelated variables that happened to be of type `KnownType`.
This also reverts #73027, which worked around this issue in some cases and does not appear to be necessary any more.
fixes#77982fixes#78055
Tweak ui-tests structure
We have some similar name dirs in ui tests, e.g. `associated-type` and `associated-types` and it can be an issue when we add a test, "which is the right place?". At a glance, it seems they can be merged into one directory so let's merge them to avoid some confusion :)
normalize substs while inlining
fixes#68347 or more precisely, this fixes the same ICE in rust analyser as veloren is pinned to a specific nightly
and had an error with the current one.
I didn't look into creating an MVCE here as that seems fairly annoying, will spend a few minutes doing so rn. (failed)
r? `@eddyb` cc `@bjorn3`
For example, if you had this code:
fn foo(x: i32, y: f32) -> f32 {
x * y
}
You would get this error:
error[E0277]: cannot multiply `f32` to `i32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x * y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 * f32`
|
= help: the trait `Mul<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
However, that's not usually how people describe multiplication. People
usually describe multiplication like how the division error words it:
error[E0277]: cannot divide `i32` by `f32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x / y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 / f32`
|
= help: the trait `Div<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
So that's what this change does. It changes this:
error[E0277]: cannot multiply `f32` to `i32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x * y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 * f32`
|
= help: the trait `Mul<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
To this:
error[E0277]: cannot multiply `i32` by `f32`
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | x * y
| ^ no implementation for `i32 * f32`
|
= help: the trait `Mul<f32>` is not implemented for `i32`
Suggest correct place to add `self` parameter when inside closure
It would incorrectly suggest adding it as a parameter to the closure instead of the containing function.
[For example](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=1936bcd1e5f981573386e0cee985c3c0):
```
help: add a `self` receiver parameter to make the associated `fn` a method
|
5 | let _ = || self&self;
| ^^^^^
```
`DiagnosticMetadata.current_function` is only used for these messages so tweaking its behavior should be ok.
Fix grammar in note for orphan-rule error [E0210]
Fixes the grammar in the error note for [E0210] from:
_"= note: implementing a foreign trait is only possible if at least one of the types for which **is it** implemented is local"_
to:
_"= note: implementing a foreign trait is only possible if at least one of the types for which **it is** implemented is local"_
The content of this commit is the result of running the following command at the repository root:
`find . \( -type d -name .git -prune \) -o -type f -print0 | xargs -0 sed -i 's/which is it implemented/which it is implemented/g'`
resolve: Do not put nonexistent crate `meta` into prelude
Before the 2018 edition release there was some vague suggestion about adding a crate named `meta` to the standard distribution.
On this basis the name `meta` was "partially reserved" by putting `meta` into extern prelude (this means importing something named `meta` will result in an ambiguity error, for example).
This only caused confusion so far, and two years later there are no specific plans to add such crate.
If some standard crate (named `meta` or not) is added in the future, then cargo will hopefully already have ability to put it into extern prelude explicitly through `Cargo.toml`.
Otherwise, it could be added to extern prelude by the compiler at edition boundary.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73948
Permit uninhabited enums to cast into ints
This essentially reverts part of #6204; it is unclear why that [commit](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/6204/commits/c0f587de34f30b060df8a88c4068740e587b9340) was introduced, and I suspect no one remembers.
The changed code was only called from casting checks and appears to not affect any callers of that code (other than permitting this one case).
Fixes#75647.
Suggest minimal subset features in `incomplete_features` lint
This tells users that we have a minimal subset feature of it and they can fix the lint warning without allowing it.
The wording improvement is helpful :)
Fixes#77913
resolve: further improvements to "try using the enum's variant" diagnostic
Follow-up on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77341#issuecomment-702738281.
This PR improves the diagnostic modified in #77341 to suggest not only those variants which do not have fields, but those with fields (by suggesting with placeholders). In addition, the wording of the tuple-variant-only case is improved slightly.
I've not made further changes to the tuple-variant-only case (e.g. to only suggest variants with the correct number of fields) because I don't think I have enough information to do so reliably (e.g. in the case where there is an attempt to construct a tuple variant, I have no information on how many fields were provided; and in the case of pattern matching, I only have a slice of spans and would need to check for things like `..` in those spans, which doesn't seem worth it).
r? @estebank
stabilize union with 'ManuallyDrop' fields and 'impl Drop for Union'
As [discussed by @SimonSapin and @withoutboats](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55149#issuecomment-634692020), this PR proposes to stabilize parts of the `untagged_union` feature gate:
* It will be possible to have a union with field type `ManuallyDrop<T>` for any `T`.
* While at it I propose we also stabilize `impl Drop for Union`; to my knowledge, there are no open concerns around this feature.
In the RFC discussion, we also talked about allowing `&mut T` as another non-`Copy` non-dropping type, but that felt to me like an overly specific exception so I figured we'd wait if there is actually any use for such a special case.
Some things remain unstable and still require the `untagged_union` feature gate:
* Union with fields that do not drop, are not `Copy`, and are not `ManuallyDrop<_>`. The reason to not stabilize this is to avoid semver concerns around libraries adding `Drop` implementations later. (This is already not fully semver compatible as, to my knowledge, the borrow checker will exploit the non-dropping nature of any type, but it seems prudent to avoid further increasing the amount of trouble adding an `impl Drop` can cause.)
Due to this, quite a few tests still need the `untagged_union` feature, but I think the ones where I could remove the feature flag provide good test coverage for the stable part.
Cc @rust-lang/lang
