Suggest correct comparison against negative literal
When parsing as emplacement syntax (`x<-1`), suggest the correct syntax
for comparison against a negative value (`x< -1`).
Fix#45651.
April 2016's Issue #33174 called out the E0446 diagnostics as
confusing. While adding the name of the restricted type to the message
(548e681f) clarified matters somewhat, Esteban Küber pointed out that we
could stand to place a secondary span on the restricted type.
Here, we differentiate between crate-visible, truly private, and
otherwise restricted types, and place a secondary span specifically on
the visibility modifier of the restricted type's declaration (which we
can do now that HIR visibilities have spans!).
At long last, this resolves#33174.
If the item is `pub`, one imagines users being confused as to why it's
not reachable/exported; a code suggestion is beyond our local knowledge
here, but we can at least offer a prose hint. (Thanks to Vadim
Petrochenkov for shooting down the present author's original bad idea
for the note text.)
While we're here, use proper HELP expectations instead of ad hoc
comments to communicate (and now, enforce) the expected suggestions in
test/ui/lint/suggestions.rs.
This is probably quite a lot less likely to come up in practice than the
"inherited" (no visibility keyword) case, but now that we have
visibility spans in the HIR, we can do this, and it presumably doesn't
hurt to be exhaustive. (Who can say but that the attention to detail
just might knock someone's socks off, someday, somewhere?)
This is inspired by #47383.
Previously (issue #46186, pull-request #46258), a suggestion was added
to remove the semicolon after we fail to parse an item, but issue #51603
complains that it's still insufficiently obvious why. Let's add a note.
Resolves#51603.
Do not allow LLVM to increase a TLS's alignment on macOS.
This addresses the various TLS segfault on macOS 10.10.
Fix#51794.
Fix#51758.
Fix#50867.
Fix#48866.
Fix#46355.
Fix#44056.
Most of the time, it's not a problem that the types of the arm bodies in
a desugared-from-`?` match are different (that is, specifically: in `x?`
where x is a `Result<A, B>`, the `Ok` arm body is an `A`, whereas the
`Err` arm diverges to return a `Result<A, B>`), because they're being
assigned to different places. But in tail position, the types do need to
match, and our error message was explicitly referring to "match arms",
which is confusing when there's no `match` in the sweetly sugared
source.
It is not without some misgivings that we pollute the clarity-of-purpose
of `note_error_origin` with the suggestion to wrap with `Ok` (the other
branches are pointing out the odd-arm-out in the HIR that is the origin
of the error; the new branch that issues the `Ok` suggestion is serving
a different purpose), but it's the natural place to do it given that
we're already matching on `ObligationCauseCode::MatchExpressionArm {
arm_span, source }` there.
Resolves#51632.
Implement PartialEq between &str and OsString
This fixes#49854.
It allows equality comparison between `OsString` values and `str` references, such as `os_string == "something"`.
Make the public API of the alloc crate a subset of std
This only affects **unstable** APIs.
I plan to submit an RFC proposing to stabilize the crate. The reason it isn’t stable yet (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27783) is in case we end up merging the standard library crates into one. However the `core` crate is already stable, so if that happens we’ll need to keep it working somehow (likely by making replacing its contents by `pub use` items). We can do the same for `alloc`. This PR will hopefully make this easier, but even if that doesn’t happen consistency with `std` seems good.
[NLL] Better move errors
Make a number of changes to improve the quality of NLL cannot move errors.
* Group errors that occur in the same `match` with the same cause.
* Suggest `ref`, `&` or removing `*` to avoid the move.
* Show the place being matched on.
Differences from AST borrowck:
* `&` is suggested over `ref` when matching on a place that can't be moved from.
* Removing `*` is suggested instead of adding `&` when applicable.
* Sub-pattern spans aren't used, this would probably need Spans on Places.
Closes#45699Closes#46627Closes#51187Closes#51189
r? @pnkfelix
Optimize RefCell refcount tracking
Address the performance concern raised in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/51466#issuecomment-398255276
cc @dtolnay @nnethercote @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance
cc @RalfJung @jhjourdan for soundness concerns
Can somebody kick off a perf run on this? I'm not sure how that's done, but I understand it has to be started manually.
The idea of this change is to switch to representing mutable refcount as values below 0 to eliminate some branching that was required with the old algorithm.
