Revert "Auto merge of #79209
r? `@nikomatsakis`
This has caused some issues (#79560) so better to revert and try to come up with a proper fix without rush.
Do not show negative polarity trait implementations in diagnostic messages for similar implementations
This fixes#79458.
Previously, this code:
```rust
#[derive(Clone)]
struct Foo<'a, T> {
x: &'a mut T,
}
```
would have suggested that `<&mut T as Clone>` was an implementation that was found. This is due to the fact that the standard library now has `impl<'_, T> !Clone for &'_ mut T`, and explicit negative polarity implementations were not filtered out in diagnostic output when suggesting similar implementations.
This PR fixes this issue by filtering out negative polarity trait implementations in `find_similar_impl_candidates` within `rustc_trait_selection::traits::error_reporting::InferCtxtPrivExt<'tcx>`. It also adds a UI regression test for this issue and fixes UI tests that had incorrectly been modified to expect the invalid output.
r? `@scottmcm`
Use true previous lint level when detecting overriden forbids
Previously, cap-lints was ignored when checking the previous forbid level, which
meant that it was a hard error to do so. This is different from the normal
behavior of lints, which are silenced by cap-lints; if the forbid would not take
effect regardless, there is not much point in complaining about the fact that we
are reducing its level.
It might be considered a bug that even `--cap-lints deny` would suffice to
silence the error on overriding forbid, depending on if one cares about failing
the build or precisely forbid being set. But setting cap-lints to deny is quite
odd and not really done in practice, so we don't try to handle it specially.
This also unifies the code paths for nested and same-level scopes. However, the
special case for CLI lint flags is left in place (introduced by #70918) to fix
the regression noted in #70819. That means that CLI flags do not lint on forbid
being overridden by a non-forbid level. It is unclear whether this is a bug or a
desirable feature, but it is certainly inconsistent. CLI flags are a
sufficiently different "type" of place though that this is deemed out of scope
for this commit.
r? `@pnkfelix` perhaps?
cc #77713 -- not marking as "Fixes" because of the lack of proper unused attribute handling in this PR
Add wasm32 support to inline asm
There is some contention around inline asm and wasm, and I really only made this to figure out the process of hacking on rustc, but I figured as long as the code existed, it was worth uploading.
cc `@Amanieu`
Remove const_fn_feature_flags test
## Overview
Helps with #76268
I found `const_fn_feature_flags` is targeting feature-gate and remove it.
r? ``@matklad``
Update error to reflect that integer literals can have float suffixes
For example, `1` is parsed as an integer literal, but it can be turned
into a float with the suffix `f32`. Now the error calls them "numeric
literals" and notes that you can add a float suffix since they can be
either integers or floats.
Fix overlap detection of `usize`/`isize` range patterns
`usize` and `isize` are a bit of a special case in the match usefulness algorithm, because the range of values they contain depends on the platform. Specifically, we don't want `0..usize::MAX` to count as an exhaustive match (see also [`precise_pointer_size_matching`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/56354)). The way this was initially implemented is by treating those ranges like float ranges, i.e. with limited cleverness. This means we didn't catch the following as unreachable:
```rust
match 0usize {
0..10 => {},
10..20 => {},
5..15 => {}, // oops, should be detected as unreachable
_ => {},
}
```
This PRs fixes this oversight. Now the only difference between `usize` and `u64` range patterns is in what ranges count as exhaustive.
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` label +A-exhaustiveness-checking
Update tests to remove old numeric constants
Part of #68490.
Care has been taken to leave the old consts where appropriate, for testing backcompat regressions, module shadowing, etc. The intrinsics docs were accidentally referring to some methods on f64 as std::f64, which I changed due to being contrary with how we normally disambiguate the shadow module from the primitive. In one other place I changed std::u8 to std::ops since it was just testing path handling in macros.
For places which have legitimate uses of the old consts, deprecated attributes have been optimistically inserted. Although currently unnecessary, they exist to emphasize to any future deprecation effort the necessity of these specific symbols and prevent them from being accidentally removed.
Support repr(simd) on ADTs containing a single array field
This is a squash and rebase of `@gnzlbg's` #63531
I've never actually written code in the compiler before so just fumbled my way around until it would build 😅
I imagine there'll be some work we need to do in `rustc_codegen_cranelift` too for this now, but might need some input from `@bjorn3` to know what that is.
cc `@rust-lang/project-portable-simd`
-----
This PR allows using `#[repr(simd)]` on ADTs containing a single array field:
```rust
#[repr(simd)] struct S0([f32; 4]);
#[repr(simd)] struct S1<const N: usize>([f32; N]);
#[repr(simd)] struct S2<T, const N: usize>([T; N]);
```
This should allow experimenting with portable packed SIMD abstractions on nightly that make use of const generics.
Part of #68490.
Care has been taken to leave the old consts where appropriate, for testing backcompat regressions, module shadowing, etc. The intrinsics docs were accidentally referring to some methods on f64 as std::f64, which I changed due to being contrary with how we normally disambiguate the shadow module from the primitive. In one other place I changed std::u8 to std::ops since it was just testing path handling in macros.
For places which have legitimate uses of the old consts, deprecated attributes have been optimistically inserted. Although currently unnecessary, they exist to emphasize to any future deprecation effort the necessity of these specific symbols and prevent them from being accidentally removed.
Properly handle attributes on statements
We now collect tokens for the underlying node wrapped by `StmtKind`
nstead of storing tokens directly in `Stmt`.
`LazyTokenStream` now supports capturing a trailing semicolon after it
is initially constructed. This allows us to avoid refactoring statement
parsing to wrap the parsing of the semicolon in `parse_tokens`.
Attributes on item statements
(e.g. `fn foo() { #[bar] struct MyStruct; }`) are now treated as
item attributes, not statement attributes, which is consistent with how
we handle attributes on other kinds of statements. The feature-gating
code is adjusted so that proc-macro attributes are still allowed on item
statements on stable.
Two built-in macros (`#[global_allocator]` and `#[test]`) needed to be
adjusted to support being passed `Annotatable::Stmt`.
For example, `1` is parsed as an integer literal, but it can be turned
into a float with the suffix `f32`. Now the error calls them "numeric
literals" and notes that you can add a float suffix since they can be
either integers or floats.
