use structured suggestion for method calls
Furthermore, don't suggest calling the method if it is part of a place
expression, as this is invalid syntax.
I'm thinking it might be worth putting a label on the method assignment span like "this is a method" and removing the span from the "methods are immutable" text so it isn't reported twice.
The suggestions in `src/test/ui/did_you_mean/issue-40396.stderr` are suboptimal. I could check if the containing expression is `BinOp`, but I'm not sure if that's general enough. Any ideas?
r? @estebank
Improve type mismatch error messages
Closes#56115.
Replace "integral variable" with "integer" and replace "floating-point variable" with "floating-point number" to make the message less confusing.
TODO the book and clippy needs to be changed accordingly later.
r? @varkor
privacy: Use common `DefId` visiting infrastructure for all privacy visitors
One repeating pattern in privacy checking is going through a type, visiting all `DefId`s inside it and doing something with them.
This is the case because visibilities and reachabilities are attached to `DefId`s.
Previously various privacy visitors visited types slightly differently using their own methods, with most recently written `TypePrivacyVisitor` being the "gold standard".
This mostly worked okay, but differences could manifest in overly conservative reachability analysis, some errors being reported twice, some private-in-public lints (not errors) being wrongly reported or not reported.
This PR does something that I wanted to do since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/32674#discussion_r58291608 - factoring out the common visiting logic!
Now all the common logic is contained in `struct DefIdVisitorSkeleton`, with specific privacy visitors deciding only what to do with visited `DefId`s (via `trait DefIdVisitor`).
A bunch of cleanups is also applied in the process.
This area is somewhat tricky due to lots of easily miss-able details, but thankfully it's was well covered by tests in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/46083 and previous PRs, so I'm relatively sure in the refactoring correctness.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/56837#discussion_r241962239 in particular.
Also this will help with implementing https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48054.
make non_camel_case_types an early lint
This allows us to catch these kinds of style violations much earlier, as evidenced by the large number of tests that had to be updated for this change.
Contexually dependent error message for E0424 when value is assigned to "self"
This is an improvement for pull request #54495 referencing issue #54369. If the "self" keyword is assigned a value as though it were a valid identifier, it will now report:
```
let self = "self";
^^^^ `self` value is a keyword and may not be bound to variables or shadowed
```
instead of
```
let self = "self";
^^^^ `self` value is a keyword only available in methods with `self` parameter
```
If anyone has a better idea for what the error should be I'd be happy to modify it appropriately.
Ever since we added a Cargo-based build system for the compiler the
standard library has always been a little special, it's never been able
to depend on crates.io crates for runtime dependencies. This has been a
result of various limitations, namely that Cargo doesn't understand that
crates from crates.io depend on libcore, so Cargo tries to build crates
before libcore is finished.
I had an idea this afternoon, however, which lifts the strategy
from #52919 to directly depend on crates.io crates from the standard
library. After all is said and done this removes a whopping three
submodules that we need to manage!
The basic idea here is that for any crate `std` depends on it adds an
*optional* dependency on an empty crate on crates.io, in this case named
`rustc-std-workspace-core`. This crate is overridden via `[patch]` in
this repository to point to a local crate we write, and *that* has a
`path` dependency on libcore.
Note that all `no_std` crates also depend on `compiler_builtins`, but if
we're not using submodules we can publish `compiler_builtins` to
crates.io and all crates can depend on it anyway! The basic strategy
then looks like:
* The standard library (or some transitive dep) decides to depend on a
crate `foo`.
* The standard library adds
```toml
[dependencies]
foo = { version = "0.1", features = ['rustc-dep-of-std'] }
```
* The crate `foo` has an optional dependency on `rustc-std-workspace-core`
* The crate `foo` has an optional dependency on `compiler_builtins`
* The crate `foo` has a feature `rustc-dep-of-std` which activates these
crates and any other necessary infrastructure in the crate.
A sample commit for `dlmalloc` [turns out to be quite simple][commit].
After that all `no_std` crates should largely build "as is" and still be
publishable on crates.io! Notably they should be able to continue to use
stable Rust if necessary, since the `rename-dependency` feature of Cargo
is soon stabilizing.
As a proof of concept, this commit removes the `dlmalloc`,
`libcompiler_builtins`, and `libc` submodules from this repository. Long
thorns in our side these are now gone for good and we can directly
depend on crates.io! It's hoped that in the long term we can bring in
other crates as necessary, but for now this is largely intended to
simply make it easier to manage these crates and remove submodules.
This should be a transparent non-breaking change for all users, but one
possible stickler is that this almost for sure breaks out-of-tree
`std`-building tools like `xargo` and `cargo-xbuild`. I think it should
be relatively easy to get them working, however, as all that's needed is
an entry in the `[patch]` section used to build the standard library.
Hopefully we can work with these tools to solve this problem!
[commit]: 28ee12db81
Rollup of 25 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #55562 (Add powerpc- and powerpc64-unknown-linux-musl targets)
- #55564 (test/linkage-visibility: Ignore on musl targets)
- #55827 (A few tweaks to iterations/collecting)
- #55834 (Forward the ABI of the non-zero sized fields of an union if they have the same ABI)
- #55857 (remove unused dependency)
- #55862 (in which the E0618 "expected function" diagnostic gets a makeover)
- #55867 (do not panic just because cargo failed)
- #55894 (miri enum discriminant handling: Fix treatment of pointers, better error when it is undef)
- #55916 (Make miri value visitor useful for mutation)
- #55919 (core/tests/num: Simplify `test_int_from_str_overflow()` test code)
- #55923 (reword #[test] attribute error on fn items)
- #55949 (ty: return impl Iterator from Predicate::walk_tys)
- #55952 (Update to Clang 7 on CI.)
- #55953 (#53488 Refactoring UpvarId)
- #55962 (rustdoc: properly calculate spans for intra-doc link resolution errors)
- #55963 (Stress test for MPSC)
- #55968 (Clean up some non-mod-rs stuff.)
- #55970 (Miri backtrace improvements)
- #56007 (CTFE: dynamically make sure we do not call non-const-fn)
- #56011 (Replace data.clone() by Arc::clone(&data) in mutex doc.)
- #56012 (avoid shared ref in UnsafeCell::get)
- #56016 (Add VecDeque::resize_with)
- #56027 (docs: Add missing backtick in object_safety.rs docs)
- #56043 (remove "approx env bounds" if we already know from trait)
- #56059 (Increase `Duration` approximate equal threshold to 1us)
in which the E0618 "expected function" diagnostic gets a makeover
A woman of wisdom once told me, "Better late than never." (Can't reopen the previously-closed pull request from six months ago [due to GitHub limitations](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/51098#issuecomment-437647157).)
Now the main span focuses on the erroneous not-a-function callee, while showing the entire call expression is relegated to a secondary span. In the case where the erroneous callee is itself a call, we
point out the definition, and, if the call expression spans multiple lines, tentatively suggest a semicolon (because we suspect that the "outer" call is actually supposed to be a tuple).
The new `bug!` assertion is, in fact, safe (`confirm_builtin_call` is only called by `check_call`, which is only called with a first arg of kind `ExprKind::Call` in `check_expr_kind`).
Resolves#51055.
r? @estebank
Now the main span focuses on the erroneous not-a-function callee,
while showing the entire call expression is relegated to a secondary
span. In the case where the erroneous callee is itself a call, we
point out the definition, and, if the call expression spans multiple
lines, tentatively suggest a semicolon (because we suspect that the
"outer" call is actually supposed to be a tuple).
The new `bug!` assertion is, in fact, safe (`confirm_builtin_call` is
only called by `check_call`, which is only called with a first arg of
kind `ExprKind::Call` in `check_expr_kind`).
Resolves#51055.
