Fully implement or-pattern parsing
Builds upon the initial parsing in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61708 to fully implement or-pattern (`p | q`) parsing as specified in [the grammar section of RFC 2535](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2535-or-patterns.md#grammar).
Noteworthy:
- We allow or-patterns in `[p | q, ...]`.
- We allow or-patterns in `let` statements and `for` expressions including with leading `|`.
- We improve recovery for `p || q` (+ tests for that in `multiple-pattern-typo.rs`).
- We improve recovery for `| p | q` in inner patterns (tests in `or-patterns-syntactic-fail.rs`).
- We rigorously test or-pattern parsing (in `or-patterns-syntactic-{pass,fail}.rs`).
- We harden the feature gating tests.
- We do **_not_** change `ast.rs`. That is, `ExprKind::Let.0` and `Arm.pats` still accept `Vec<P<Pat>>`.
I was starting work on that but it would be cleaner to do this in a separate PR so this one has a narrower scope.
cc @dlrobertson
cc the tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54883.
r? @estebank
Also mark derive helpers as known as a part of the derive container's expansion instead of expansion of the derives themselves which may happen too late.
Point at method call on missing annotation error
Make it clearer where the type name that couldn't be inferred comes from.
Before:
```
error[E0282]: type annotations needed
--> src/test/ui/span/type-annotations-needed-expr.rs:2:13
|
2 | let _ = (vec![1,2,3]).into_iter().sum() as f64; //~ ERROR E0282
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ cannot infer type for `S`
|
= note: type must be known at this point
```
after
```
error[E0282]: type annotations needed
--> src/test/ui/span/type-annotations-needed-expr.rs:2:39
|
2 | let _ = (vec![1,2,3]).into_iter().sum() as f64; //~ ERROR E0282
| ^^^ cannot infer type for `S`
|
= note: type must be known at this point
```
CC #63852.
Permit unwinding through FFI by default
This repeats #62505 for master (Rust 1.38+), as #58794 is not yet resolved. This is a stopgap until a stable alternative is available, like [RFC 2699](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2699), as long as progress is being made to that end.
r? @joshtriplett
Closure types have been moved to the namespace where they
are defined, and both closure and generator type names now
include the disambiguator.
This fixes an exception when lldb prints nested closures.
Fixes#57822
Suggest calling closure with resolved return type when appropriate
Follow up to #63337. CC #63100.
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> $DIR/fn-or-tuple-struct-without-args.rs:46:20
|
LL | let closure = || 42;
| -- closure defined here
LL | let _: usize = closure;
| ^^^^^^^
| |
| expected usize, found closure
| help: use parentheses to call this closure: `closure()`
|
= note: expected type `usize`
found type `[closure@$DIR/fn-or-tuple-struct-without-args.rs:45:19: 45:24]`
```
Fixes#58700Fixes#58696Fixes#49553Fixes#52210
This commit removes the special rustdoc handling for proc macros, as we
can now
retrieve their span and attributes just like any other item.
A new command-line option is added to rustdoc: `--crate-type`. This
takes the same options as rustc's `--crate-type` option. However, all
values other than `proc-macro` are treated the same. This allows Rustdoc
to enable 'proc macro mode' when handling a proc macro crate.
In compiletest, a new 'rustdoc-flags' option is added. This allows us to
pass in the '--proc-macro-crate' flag in the absence of Cargo.
I've opened [an additional PR to
Cargo](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/7159) to support passing
in this flag.
These two PRS can be merged in any order - the Cargo changes will not
take effect until the 'cargo' submodule is updated in this repository.
Tweak E0308 on opaque types
```
error[E0308]: if and else have incompatible types
--> file.rs:21:9
|
18 | / if true {
19 | | thing_one()
| | ----------- expected because of this
20 | | } else {
21 | | thing_two()
| | ^^^^^^^^^^^ expected opaque type, found a different opaque type
22 | | }.await
| |_____- if and else have incompatible types
|
= note: expected type `impl std::future::Future` (opaque type)
found type `impl std::future::Future` (opaque type)
= note: distinct uses of `impl Trait` result in different opaque types
= help: if both futures resolve to the same type, consider `await`ing on both of them
```
r? @Centril
CC #63167
