Remove the `overlapping_marker_traits` feature
See #29864
This has been replaced by `#[feature(marker_trait_attr)]`
A few notes:
* Due to PR #68057 not yet being in the bootstrap compiler, it's
necessary to continue using `#![feature(overlapping_marker_traits)]`
under `#[cfg(bootstrap)]` to work around type inference issues.
* I've updated tests that used `overlapping_marker_traits` to now use
`marker_trait_attr` where applicable
The test `src/test/ui/overlap-marker-trait.rs` doesn't make any sense
now that `overlapping_marker_traits`, so I removed it.
The test `src/test/ui/traits/overlap-permitted-for-marker-traits-neg.rs`
now fails, since it's no longer possible to have multiple overlapping
negative impls of `Send`. I believe that this is the behavior we want
(assuming that `Send` is not going to become a `#[marker]` trait, so I
renamed the test to `overlap-permitted-for-marker-traits-neg`
See #29864
This has been replaced by `#[feature(marker_trait_attr)]`
A few notes:
* Due to PR #68057 not yet being in the bootstrap compiler, it's
necessary to continue using `#![feature(overlapping_marker_traits)]`
under `#[cfg(bootstrap)]` to work around type inference issues.
* I've updated tests that used `overlapping_marker_traits` to now use
`marker_trait_attr` where applicable
The test `src/test/ui/overlap-marker-trait.rs` doesn't make any sense
now that `overlapping_marker_traits`, so I removed it.
The test `src/test/ui/traits/overlap-permitted-for-marker-traits-neg.rs`
now fails, since it's no longer possible to have multiple overlapping
negative impls of `Send`. I believe that this is the behavior we want
(assuming that `Send` is not going to become a `#[marker]` trait, so I
renamed the test to `overlap-permitted-for-marker-traits-neg`
Indicate origin of where type parameter for uninferred types
Based on #65951 (which is not merge yet), fixes#67277.
This PR improves a little the diagnostic for code like:
```
async fn foo() {
bar().await;
}
async fn bar<T>() -> () {}
```
by showing:
```
error[E0698]: type inside `async fn` body must be known in this context
--> unresolved_type_param.rs:9:5
|
9 | bar().await;
| ^^^ cannot infer type for type parameter `T` declared on the function `bar`
|
...
```
(The
```
declared on the function `bar`
```
part is new)
A small side note: `Vec` and `slice` seem to resist this change, because querying `item_name()` panics, and `get_opt_name()` returns `None`.
r? @estebank
This reverts commit 3ed3b8bb7b, reversing
changes made to 99b89533d4.
We will reland a similar patch at a future date but for now we should get a nightly
released in a few hours with the parallel patch, so this should be
reverted to make sure that the next nightly is not parallel-enabled.
This also removes the unused NO_PARALLEL_COMPILER flag; if we want that
functionality we can readd it but this makes sure we really are parallel
everywhere.
This also patches a test that has differing output in the parallel case
(hopefully deterministically so!).
Include a span in more `expected...found` notes
In most places, we use a span when emitting `expected...found` errors.
However, there were a couple of places where we didn't use any span,
resulting in hard-to-interpret error messages.
This commit attaches the relevant span to these notes, and additionally
switches over to using `note_expected_found` instead of manually
formatting the message
Make `process_obligations()` greedier.
`process_obligations()` adds new nodes, but it does not process these
new nodes until the next time it is called.
This commit changes it so that it does process these new nodes within
the same call. This change reduces the number of calls to
`process_obligations()` required to complete processing, sometimes
giving significant speed-ups.
The change required some changes to tests.
- The output of `cycle-cache-err-60010.rs` is slightly different.
- The unit tests required extra cases to handle the earlier processing
of the added nodes. I mostly did these in the simplest possible way,
by making the added nodes be ignored, thus giving outcomes the same as
with the old behaviour. But I changed `success_in_grandchildren()`
more extensively so that some obligations are completed earlier than
they used to be.
r? @nikomatsakis
In most places, we use a span when emitting `expected...found` errors.
However, there were a couple of places where we didn't use any span,
resulting in hard-to-interpret error messages.
This commit attaches the relevant span to these notes, and additionally
switches over to using `note_expected_found` instead of manually
formatting the message
Issue #22750
The error reporting for E0277 (the trait `X` is not implemented for `Foo`)
now checks whether `Foo` implements a trait with the same path as `X`,
which probably means that the programmer wanted to actually use only one
version of the trait `X` instead of the two.
Aggregation of drive-by cosmetic changes for trait-upcasting PR
Cherry-picked from #60900.
As requested by @Centril (and @nikomatsakis, I believe).
r? @Centril
