Account for `!` arm in tail `match` expr
On functions with a default return type that influences the coerced type of `match` arms, check if the failing arm is actually of type `!`. If so, suggest changing the return type so the coercion against the prior arms is successful.
```
error[E0308]: `match` arms have incompatible types
--> $DIR/match-tail-expr-never-type-error.rs:9:13
|
LL | fn bar(a: bool) {
| - help: try adding a return type: `-> i32`
LL | / match a {
LL | | true => 1,
| | - this is found to be of type `{integer}`
LL | | false => {
LL | | never()
| | ^^^^^^^
| | |
| | expected integer, found `()`
| | this expression is of type `!`, but it get's coerced to `()` due to its surrounding expression
LL | | }
LL | | }
| |_____- `match` arms have incompatible types
```
Fix#24157.
Do not erase late bound regions when selecting inherent associated types
In the fix for #97156 we would want the following code:
```rust
#![feature(inherent_associated_types)]
#![allow(incomplete_features)]
struct Foo<T>(T);
impl Foo<fn(&'static ())> {
type Assoc = u32;
}
trait Other {}
impl Other for u32 {}
// FIXME(inherent_associated_types): Avoid emitting two diagnostics (they only differ in span).
// FIXME(inherent_associated_types): Enhancement: Spruce up the diagnostic by saying something like
// "implementation is not general enough" as is done for traits via
// `try_report_trait_placeholder_mismatch`.
fn bar(_: Foo<for<'a> fn(&'a ())>::Assoc) {}
//~^ ERROR mismatched types
//~| ERROR mismatched types
fn main() {}
```
to fail with ...
```
error[E0220]: associated type `Assoc` not found for `Foo<for<'a> fn(&'a ())>` in the current scope
--> tests/ui/associated-inherent-types/issue-109789.rs:18:36
|
4 | struct Foo<T>(T);
| ------------- associated item `Assoc` not found for this struct
...
18 | fn bar(_: Foo<for<'a> fn(&'a ())>::Assoc) {}
| ^^^^^ associated item not found in `Foo<for<'a> fn(&'a ())>`
|
= note: the associated type was found for
- `Foo<fn(&'static ())>`
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0220`.
```
This PR fixes the ICE we are currently getting "was a subtype of Foo<Binder(fn(&ReStatic ()), [])> during selection but now it is not"
Also fixes#112631
r? `@lcnr`
On functions with a default return type that influences the coerced type
of `match` arms, check if the failing arm is actually of type `!`. If
so, suggest changing the return type so the coercion against the prior
arms is successful.
```
error[E0308]: `match` arms have incompatible types
--> $DIR/match-tail-expr-never-type-error.rs:9:13
|
LL | fn bar(a: bool) {
| - help: try adding a return type: `-> i32`
LL | / match a {
LL | | true => 1,
| | - this is found to be of type `{integer}`
LL | | false => {
LL | | never()
| | ^^^^^^^
| | |
| | expected integer, found `()`
| | this expression is of type `!`, but it get's coerced to `()` due to its surrounding expression
LL | | }
LL | | }
| |_____- `match` arms have incompatible types
```
Fix#24157.
Suggest swapping the order of `ref` and `box`
It is not valid grammar to write `ref box <ident>` in patterns, but `box ref <ident>` is.
This patch adds a diagnostic to suggest swapping them, analogous to what we do for `mut let`.
Add `debug_assert_nounwind` and convert `assert_unsafe_precondition`
`assert_unsafe_precondition` checks non-CTFE-evaluable conditions in runtime and performs no-op in compile time, while many of its current usage can be checked during const eval.
Rewrite exhaustiveness in one pass
This is at least my 4th attempt at this in as many years x) Previous attempts were all too complicated or too slow. But we're finally here!
The previous version of the exhaustiveness algorithm computed reachability for each arm then exhaustiveness of the whole match. Since each of these steps does roughly the same things, this rewrites the algorithm to do them all in one go. I also think this makes things much simpler.
I also rewrote the documentation of the algorithm in depth. Hopefully it's up-to-date and easier to follow now. Plz comment if anything's unclear.
r? `@oli-obk` I think you're one of the rare other people to understand the exhaustiveness algorithm?
cc `@varkor` I know you're not active anymore, but if you feel like having a look you might enjoy this :D
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79307
Don't ICE when encountering placeholders in implied bounds computation
I *could* fix this the right way, though I don't really want to think about the implications of the change. This should have minimal side-effects.
r? `@aliemjay`
Fixes#118286
coverage: Simplify building coverage expressions based on sums
This is a combination of some interlinked changes to the code that creates coverage counters/expressions for nodes and edges in the coverage graph:
- Some preparatory cleanups in `MakeBcbCounters::make_branch_counters`
- Use `BcbCounter` (instead of `CovTerm`) when building coverage expressions
- This makes it easier to introduce a fold for building sums
- Simplify the creation of coverage expressions based on sums, by having `Iterator::fold` do much of the work
- Get rid of the awkward `BcbBranch` enum, and replace it with graph edges represented as `(from_bcb, to_bcb)`
- This further simplifies the body of the fold
Currently we always do this:
```
use rustc_fluent_macro::fluent_messages;
...
fluent_messages! { "./example.ftl" }
```
But there is no need, we can just do this everywhere:
```
rustc_fluent_macro::fluent_messages! { "./example.ftl" }
```
which is shorter.
The `fluent_messages!` macro produces uses of
`crate::{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage`, which means that every crate using
the macro must have this import:
```
use rustc_errors::{DiagnosticMessage, SubdiagnosticMessage};
```
This commit changes the macro to instead use
`rustc_errors::{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage`, which avoids the need for the
imports.
In some cases we need to prepare a coverage expression that is the sum of an
arbitrary number of other terms. This patch simplifies the code paths that
build those sums.
This causes some churn in the mappings, because the previous code was building
its sums in a somewhat idiosyncratic order.
Fixes error count display is different when there's only one error left
Supersedes #114759
### What did I do?
I did the small change in `rustc_errors` by hand. Then I did the other changes in `/compiler` by hand, those were just find replace on `*.rs` in the workspace. The changes in run-make are find replace for `run-make` in the workspace.
All other changes are blessed using `x test TEST --bless`. I blessed the tests that were blessed in #114759.
### how to review this nightmare
ping bors with an `r+`. You should check that my logic is sound and maybe quickly scroll through the diff, but fully verifying it seems fairly hard to impossible. I did my best to do this correctly.
Thank you `@adrianEffe` for bringing this up and your initial implementation.
cc `@flip1995,` you said you want to do a subtree sync asap
cc `@RalfJung` maybe you want to do a quick subtree sync afterwards as well for Miri
r? `@WaffleLapkin`
Add `Span` to `TraitBoundModifier`
This improves diagnostics for the message "`~const` is not allowed here", and also fixes the span that we use when desugaring `~const Tr` into `Tr<host>` in effects desugaring.
Add common trait for crate definitions
In stable mir, we specialize DefId, however some functionality is the same for every definition, such as def paths, and getting their crate. Use a trait to implement those.
feat: make `let_binding_suggestion` more reasonable
This is my first PR for rustc, which trying to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117894, I am not familiar with some internal api so maybe some modification here isn't the way to go, appreciated for any review suggestion.
