Correct regression in type-inference caused by failing to reconfirm that
the object trait matches the required trait during trait selection. The
existing code was checking that the object trait WOULD match (in a
probe), but never executing the match outside of a probe.
This corrects various regressions observed in the wild, including
issue #26952. Fixes#26952.
r? @eddyb
cc @frankmcsherry
***Edit: Fixed now.*** I'm pretty sure the way I'm using LLVMReplaceAllUsesWith here is
unsafe... but before I figure out how to fix that, I'd like a
reality-check: is this actually useful?
This introduces a test for #23389 and improves the error behaviour to treat the malformed LHS as an error, not a compiler bug.
The parse phase that precedes the call to `check_lhs_nt_follows` could possibly be enhanced to police the format itself (which the old code suggests was the original intention), but I'm not sure that's any nicer than just parsing the matcher as generic rust code and then policing the specific requirements for being a macro matcher afterwards (as this does).
Fixes#23389
The borrow checker doesn't allow constructing such a type at runtime
using safe code, but there isn't any reason to ban them in the type checker.
Included in this commit is an example of a neat static doubly-linked list.
Feature-gated under the static_recursion gate to be on the safe side, but
there are unlikely to be any reasons this shouldn't be turned on by
default.
Hi all.
This is my first contribution to Rust and fixes an issue causing an invalid error message to be presented to the user when using unit struct as length of a repeat expression, issue #27008. The solution is based on suggestions by @oli-obk, but as I'm a complete newbie to this, I have no clue if I got them right :)
The biggest concern I have is that if the `NodeId` I'm returning is the correct one or not (it's not meaningful in this case but I think it would be nice to get it right).
Refactors the "desugaring" of closures to expose the types of the upvars. This is necessary to be faithful with how actual structs work. The reasoning of the particular desugaring that I chose is explained in a fairly detailed comment.
As a side-effect, recursive closure types are prohibited unless a trait object intermediary is used. This fixes#25954 and also eliminates concerns about unrepresentable closure types that have infinite size, I believe. I don't believe this can cause regressions because of #25954.
(As for motivation, besides #25954 etc, this work is also intended as refactoring in support of incremental compilation, since closures are one of the thornier cases encountered when attempting to split node-ids into item-ids and within-item-ids. The goal is to eliminate the "internal def-id" distinction in astdecoding. However, I have to do more work on trans to really make progress there.)
r? @nrc
the object trait matches the required trait during trait selection. The
existing code was checking that the object trait WOULD match (in a
probe), but never executing the match outside of a probe.
This corrects various regressions observed in the wild, including
issue #26952. Fixes#26952.
Macro desugaring of `in PLACE { BLOCK }` into "simpler" expressions following the in-development "Placer" protocol.
Includes Placer API that one can override to integrate support for `in` into one's own type. (See [RFC 809].)
[RFC 809]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0809-box-and-in-for-stdlib.md
Part of #22181
Replaced PR #26180.
Turns on the `in PLACE { BLOCK }` syntax, while leaving in support for the old `box (PLACE) EXPR` syntax (since we need to support that at least until we have a snapshot with support for `in PLACE { BLOCK }`.
(Note that we are not 100% committed to the `in PLACE { BLOCK }` syntax. In particular I still want to play around with some other alternatives. Still, I want to get the fundamental framework for the protocol landed so we can play with implementing it for non `Box` types.)
----
Also, this PR leaves out support for desugaring-based `box EXPR`. We will hopefully land that in the future, but for the short term there are type-inference issues injected by that change that we want to resolve separately.
Currently you can hit a link error on MSVC by only referencing static items from
a crate (no functions for example) and then link to the crate statically (as all
Rust crates do 99% of the time). A detailed investigation can be found [on
github][details], but the tl;dr is that we need to stop applying dllimport so
aggressively.
This commit alters the application of dllimport on constants to only cases where
the crate the constant originated from will be linked as a dylib in some output
crate type. That way if we're just linking rlibs (like the motivation for this
issue) we won't use dllimport. For the compiler, however, (which has lots of
dylibs) we'll use dllimport.
[details]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/26591#issuecomment-123513631
cc #26591
Makes the lint a bit more accurate, and improves the quality of the diagnostic
messages by explicitly returning an error message.
The new lint is also a little more aggressive: specifically, it now
rejects tuples, and it recurses into function pointers.
The original test program exercised the (garbage-collected heap)
allocation form `box (GC) ...`, feeding an instance of `Structure` in
as the expression. This obviously went away when `GC` went away, but
there's no reason for us not to include an appropriate unit test here
for the same form, just for heap-allocated instances of `Structure`.
The two tests are separate since the current implementation performs
the feature gate checks at distinct phases in the compilation, with an
`abort_if_errors` calls separating them.
Even after expansion, the generated expressions still track depth of
such pushes (i.e. how often you have "pushed" without a corresponding
"pop"), and we add a rule that in a context with a positive
`push_unsafe!` depth, it is effectively an `unsafe` block context.
(This way, we can inject code that uses `unsafe` features, but still
contains within it a sub-expression that should inherit the outer
safety checking setting, outside of the injected code.)
This is a total hack; it not only needs a feature-gate, but probably
should be feature-gated forever (if possible).
ignore-pretty in test/run-pass/pushpop-unsafe-okay.rs
The "hint" mechanism is essentially used as a workaround to compute
types for expressions which have not yet been type-checked. This
commit clarifies that usage, and limits the effects to the places
where it is currently necessary.
Fixes#26210.
Currently you can hit a link error on MSVC by only referencing static items from
a crate (no functions for example) and then link to the crate statically (as all
Rust crates do 99% of the time). A detailed investigation can be found [on
github][details], but the tl;dr is that we need to stop applying dllimport so
aggressively.
This commit alters the application of dllimport on constants to only cases where
the crate the constant originated from will be linked as a dylib in some output
crate type. That way if we're just linking rlibs (like the motivation for this
issue) we won't use dllimport. For the compiler, however, (which has lots of
dylibs) we'll use dllimport.
[details]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/26591#issuecomment-123513631
cc #26591
This test attempts to exercise cyclic structure in much of `std::collections`
(as much as is possible; e.g. things like `EnumSet` and `BitVec` do not really support carrying references at all, so trying to represent cyclic structure within them dooes not really make sense.)
This work should land before we make future revisions to `dropck`; that is, I am attempting to catch potential regressions to cases where we supported cyclic structure circa Rust 1.2.
Fixes#25343
To be honest I'm not sure if this is the right fix (I haven't yet fully understood the code),
but it seems to work. I'll look closer at the code when I have some time, in the meantime if this
is the right fix it would be nice to get verification from someone who does understand the code 😄
r? @pnkfelix
