Suggest using the path separator for tuple struct
Fix confusing error message `constructor is not visible here due to private fields` for tuple struct
closes#83450
Improve cause information for NLL higher-ranked errors
This PR has several interconnected pieces:
1. In some of the NLL region error code, we now pass
around an `ObligationCause`, instead of just a plain `Span`.
This gets forwarded into `fulfill_cx.register_predicate_obligation`
during error reporting.
2. The general InferCtxt error reporting code is extended to
handle `ObligationCauseCode::BindingObligation`
3. A new enum variant `ConstraintCategory::Predicate` is added.
We try to avoid using this as the 'best blame constraint' - instead,
we use it to enhance the `ObligationCause` of the `BlameConstraint`
that we do end up choosing.
As a result, several NLL error messages now contain the same
"the lifetime requirement is introduced here" message as non-NLL
errors.
Having an `ObligationCause` available will likely prove useful
for future improvements to NLL error messages.
Pass real crate-level attributes to `pre_expansion_lint`
The PR concerns the unstable feature `register_tool` (#66079).
The feature's implementation requires the attributes of the crate being compiled, so that when attributes like `allow(foo::bar)` are encountered, it can be verified that `register_tool(foo)` appears in the crate root.
However, the crate's attributes are not readily available during early lint passes. Specifically, on this line, `krate.attrs` appears to be the attributes of the current source file, not the attributes of the whole crate: bf642323d6/compiler/rustc_lint/src/context.rs (L815)
Consequently, "unknown tool" errors were being produced when `allow(foo::bar)` appeared in a submodule, even though `register_tool(foo)` appeared in the crate root.
EDITED: The proposed fix is to obtain the real crate-level attributes in `configure_and_expand` and pass them to `pre_expansion_lint`. (See `@petrochenkov's` [comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89214#issuecomment-926927072) below.)
The original "prosed fix" text follows.
---
The proposed fix is to add an `error_on_unknown_tool` flag to `LintLevelsBuilder`. The flag controls whether "unknown tool" errors are emitted. The flag is set during late passes, but not earlier.
More specifically, this PR contains two commits:
* The first adds a `known-tool-in-submodule` UI test that does not currently pass.
* The second adds the `error_on_unknown_tool` flag. The new test passes with the addition of this flag.
This change has the added benefit of eliminating some errors that were duplicated in existing tests.
To the reviewer: please check that I implemented the UI test correctly.
This PR has several interconnected pieces:
1. In some of the NLL region error code, we now pass
around an `ObligationCause`, instead of just a plain `Span`.
This gets forwarded into `fulfill_cx.register_predicate_obligation`
during error reporting.
2. The general InferCtxt error reporting code is extended to
handle `ObligationCauseCode::BindingObligation`
3. A new enum variant `ConstraintCategory::Predicate` is added.
We try to avoid using this as the 'best blame constraint' - instead,
we use it to enhance the `ObligationCause` of the `BlameConstraint`
that we do end up choosing.
As a result, several NLL error messages now contain the same
"the lifetime requirement is introduced here" message as non-NLL
errors.
Having an `ObligationCause` available will likely prove useful
for future improvements to NLL error messages.
Remove most box syntax uses from the testsuite except for src/test/ui/issues
Removes most box syntax uses from the testsuite outside of the src/test/ui/issues directory. The goal was to only change tests where box syntax is an implementation detail instead of the actual feature being tested. So some tests were left out, like the regression test for #87935, or tests where the obtained error message changed significantly.
Mostly this replaces box syntax with `Box::new`, but there are some minor drive by improvements, like formatting improvements or `assert_eq` instead of `assert!( == )`.
Prior PR that removed box syntax from the compiler and tools: #87781
Support incremental in compiletest for non-incremental modes.
This adds first-class support for using incremental builds in non-incremental-mode tests. These tests previously manually passed `-C incremental=tmp/foo` which resulted in reusing the same tmp folder between runs. This means that these tests could fail whenever the on-disk incremental format changed (such as when updating one's local source tree). This changes it so that these tests can pass a `// incremental-build` header which instructs compiletest to create a set aside a dedicated incremental directory which will be cleared before the test starts to ensure it has a clean slate.
Validate builtin attributes for macro args.
This adds some validation for `path`, `crate_type`, and `recursion_limit` attributes so that they will now return an error if you attempt to pass a macro into them (such as `#[path = foo!()]`). Previously, the attribute would be completely ignored. These attributes are special because their values need to be known before/during expansion.
cc #87681
Introduce `Rvalue::ShallowInitBox`
Polished version of #88700.
Implements MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#460, and should allow #43596 to go forward.
In short, creating an empty box is split from a nullary-op `NullOp::Box` into two steps, first a call to `exchange_malloc`, then a `Rvalue::ShallowInitBox` which transmutes `*mut u8` to a shallow-initialized `Box<T>`. This allows the `exchange_malloc` call to unwind. Details can be found in the MCP.
`NullOp::Box` is not yet removed, purely to make reverting easier in case anything goes wrong as the result of this PR. If revert is needed a reversion of "Use Rvalue::ShallowInitBox for box expression" commit followed by a test bless should be sufficient.
Experiments in #88700 showed a very slight compile-time perf regression due to (supposedly) slightly more time spent in LLVM. We could omit unwind edge generation (in non-`oom=panic` case) in box expression MIR construction to restore perf; but I don't think it's necessary since runtime perf isn't affected and perf difference is rather small.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #88893 (Add 1.56.0 release notes)
- #89001 (Be explicit about using Binder::dummy)
- #89072 (Avoid a couple of Symbol::as_str calls in cg_llvm )
- #89104 (Simplify scoped_thread)
- #89208 ([rfc 2229] Drop fully captured upvars in the same order as the regular drop code)
- #89210 (Add missing time complexities to linked_list.rs)
- #89217 (Enable "generate-link-to-definition" option on rust tools docs as well)
- #89221 (Give better error for `macro_rules! name!`)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
[rfc 2229] Drop fully captured upvars in the same order as the regular drop code
Currently, with the new 2021 edition, if a closure captures all of the
fields of an upvar, we'll drop those fields in the order they are used
within the closure instead of the normal drop order (the definition
order of the fields in the type).
This changes that so we sort the captured fields by the definition order
which causes them to drop in that same order as well.
Fixesrust-lang/project-rfc-2229#42
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Revise never type fallback algorithm
This is a rebase of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/84573, but dropping the stabilization of never type (and the accompanying large test diff).
Each commit builds & has tests updated alongside it, and could be reviewed in a more or less standalone fashion. But it may make more sense to review the PR as a whole, I'm not sure. It should be noted that tests being updated isn't really a good indicator of final behavior -- never_type_fallback is not enabled by default in this PR, so we can't really see the full effects of the commits here.
This combines the work by Niko, which is [documented in this gist](https://gist.github.com/nikomatsakis/7a07b265dc12f5c3b3bd0422018fa660), with some additional rules largely derived to target specific known patterns that regress with the algorithm solely derived by Niko. We build these from an intuition that:
* In general, fallback to `()` is *sound* in all cases
* But, in general, we *prefer* fallback to `!` as it accepts more code, particularly that written to intentionally use `!` (e.g., Result's with a Infallible/! variant).
When evaluating Niko's proposed algorithm, we find that there are certain cases where fallback to `!` leads to compilation failures in real-world code, and fallback to `()` fixes those errors. In order to allow for stabilization, we need to fix a good portion of these patterns.
The final rule set this PR proposes is that, by default, we fallback from `?T` to `!`, with the following exceptions:
1. `?T: Foo` and `Bar::Baz = ?T` and `(): Foo`, then fallback to `()`
2. Per [Niko's algorithm](https://gist.github.com/nikomatsakis/7a07b265dc12f5c3b3bd0422018fa660#proposal-fallback-chooses-between--and--based-on-the-coercion-graph), the "live" `?T` also fallback to `()`.
The first rule is necessary to address a fairly common pattern which boils down to something like the snippet below. Without rule 1, we do not see the closure's return type as needing a () fallback, which leads to compilation failure.
```rust
#![feature(never_type_fallback)]
trait Bar { }
impl Bar for () { }
impl Bar for u32 { }
fn foo<R: Bar>(_: impl Fn() -> R) {}
fn main() {
foo(|| panic!());
}
```
r? `@jackh726`
Currently, with the new 2021 edition, if a closure captures all of the
fields of an upvar, we'll drop those fields in the order they are used
within the closure instead of the normal drop order (the definition
order of the fields in the type).
This changes that so we sort the captured fields by the definition order
which causes them to drop in that same order as well.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/42
Lazy TAIT preparation cleanups
Check that TAIT generics are fully generic in mir typeck instead of wf-check, as wf-check can by definition only check TAIT in return position and not account for TAITs defined in the body of the function
r? `@spastorino` `@nikomatsakis`
