Recover from using `;` as separator between fields
Partially fixes#101440 (only for record structs).
Doing that for tuple structs is harder as their parsing passes through a bunch of helper functions. I don't know how to do that. But [their error message is better anyway](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=cc6ee8bb2593596c0cea89d49e79bcb4) and suggests using a comma, even if it doesn't suggest replacing the semicolon with it.
Update `SessionDiagnostic::into_diagnostic` to take `Handler` instead of `ParseSess`
Suggested by the team in [this Zulip Topic](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/336883-i18n/topic/.23100717.20SessionDiagnostic.20on.20Handler).
`Handler` already has almost all the capabilities of `ParseSess` when it comes to diagnostic emission, in this migration we only needed to add the ability to access `source_map` from the emitter in order to get a `Snippet` and the `start_point`. Not sure if adding these two methods [`span_to_snippet_from_emitter` and `span_start_point_from_emitter`] is the best way to address this gap.
P.S. If this goes in the right direction, then we probably may want to move `SessionDiagnostic` to `rustc_errors` and rename it to `DiagnosticHandler` or something similar.
r? `@davidtwco`
r? `@compiler-errors`
Suggest removing unnecessary prefix let in patterns
Helps with #101291, though I think `@estebank` probably wants this:
> Finally, I think it'd be nice if we could detect that we don't know for sure and "just" swallow the rest of the expression (find the next ; accounting for nested braces) or the end of the item (easier).
... to be implemented before we close that issue out completely.
Point out when a callable is not actually callable because its return is not sized
Fixes#100755
I didn't add a UI test for that one because it's equivalent to the UI test that already exists in the suite.
Add let else drop order tests
Add a systematic matrix based test that checks temporary drop order in various settings, `let-else-drop-order.rs`, as requested [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93628#issuecomment-1055738523).
The drop order of let and let else is supposed to be the and in order to ensure this, the test checks that this holds for a number of cases.
The test also ensures that we drop the temporaries of the condition before executing the else block.
cc #87335 tracking issue for `let else`
The drop order of let and let else is supposed to be the same,
and in order to ensure this, the test checks that this holds for
the given list of cases.
The test also ensures that we drop the temporaries of the
condition before executing the else block.
We made the test matrix based so it can check all the possible
combinations and find out possible edge cases.
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #101142 (Improve HIR stats)
- #101367 (Suggest `{Option,Result}::{copied,clone}()` to satisfy type mismatch)
- #101391 (more clippy::perf fixes)
- #101409 (Don't fire `rust_2021_incompatible_closure_captures` in `edition = 2021` crates)
- #101420 (Fix `hir::Local` doc to match with the variable name used: `init`)
- #101429 (Don't suggest reborrow if usage is inside a closure)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Don't suggest reborrow if usage is inside a closure
I can't think of why we would ever be able to *successfully* suggest a mutable reborrow `&mut *` due to a move happening due to a closure, so just suppress it.
Fixes#101119
Suggest `{Option,Result}::{copied,clone}()` to satisfy type mismatch
Fixes#100699, but in the opposite direction (instead of suggesting to fix the signature, it fixes the body)
proc_macro/bridge: use the cross-thread executor for nested proc-macros
While working on some other changes in the bridge, I noticed that when
running a nested proc-macro (which is currently only possible using
the unstable `TokenStream::expand_expr`), any symbols held by the
proc-macro client would be invalidated, as the same thread would be used
for the nested macro by default, and the interner doesn't handle nested
use.
After discussing with `@eddyb,` we decided the best approach might be to
force the use of the cross-thread executor for nested invocations, as it
will never re-use thread-local storage, avoiding the issue. This
shouldn't impact performance, as expand_expr is still unstable, and
infrequently used.
This was chosen rather than making the client symbol interner handle
nested invocations, as that would require replacing the internal
interner `Vec` with a `BTreeMap` (as valid symbol id ranges could now be
disjoint), and the symbol interner is known to be fairly perf-sensitive.
This patch adds checks to the execution strategy to use the cross-thread
executor when doing nested invocations. An alternative implementation
strategy could be to track this information in the `ExtCtxt`, however a
thread-local in the `proc_macro` crate was chosen to add an assertion so
that `rust-analyzer` is aware of the issue if it implements
`expand_expr` in the future.
r? `@eddyb`
Suggested by the team in this Zulip Topic https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/336883-i18n/topic/.23100717.20SessionDiagnostic.20on.20Handler
Handler already has almost all the capabilities of ParseSess when it comes to diagnostic emission, in this migration we only needed to add the ability to access source_map from the emitter in order to get a Snippet and the start_point. Not sure if this is the best way to address this gap
Make `const_eval_select` a real intrinsic
This fixes issues where `track_caller` functions do not have nice panic
messages anymore when there is a call to the function, and uses the
MIR system to replace the call instead of dispatching via lang items.
Fixes#100696.
While working on some other changes in the bridge, I noticed that when
running a nested proc-macro (which is currently only possible using
the unstable `TokenStream::expand_expr`), any symbols held by the
proc-macro client would be invalidated, as the same thread would be used
for the nested macro by default, and the interner doesn't handle nested
use.
After discussing with @eddyb, we decided the best approach might be to
force the use of the cross-thread executor for nested invocations, as it
will never re-use thread-local storage, avoiding the issue. This
shouldn't impact performance, as expand_expr is still unstable, and
infrequently used.
This was chosen rather than making the client symbol interner handle
nested invocations, as that would require replacing the internal
interner `Vec` with a `BTreeMap` (as valid symbol id ranges could now be
disjoint), and the symbol interner is known to be fairly perf-sensitive.
This patch adds checks to the execution strategy to use the cross-thread
executor when doing nested invocations. An alternative implementation
strategy could be to track this information in the `ExtCtxt`, however a
thread-local in the `proc_macro` crate was chosen to add an assertion so
that `rust-analyzer` is aware of the issue if it implements
`expand_expr` in the future.
r? @eddyb
safe transmute: use `Assume` struct to provide analysis options
This task was left as a TODO in #92268; resolving it brings [`BikeshedIntrinsicFrom`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/mem/trait.BikeshedIntrinsicFrom.html) more in line with the API defined in [MCP411](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/411).
**Before:**
```rust
pub unsafe trait BikeshedIntrinsicFrom<
Src,
Context,
const ASSUME_ALIGNMENT: bool,
const ASSUME_LIFETIMES: bool,
const ASSUME_VALIDITY: bool,
const ASSUME_VISIBILITY: bool,
> where
Src: ?Sized,
{}
```
**After:**
```rust
pub unsafe trait BikeshedIntrinsicFrom<Src, Context, const ASSUME: Assume = { Assume::NOTHING }>
where
Src: ?Sized,
{}
```
`Assume::visibility` has also been renamed to `Assume::safety`, as library safety invariants are what's actually being assumed; visibility is just the mechanism by which it is currently checked (and that may change).
r? `@oli-obk`
---
Related:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/411
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99571
