Check var scope if it exist
Fixes#92893.
Added helper function to check the scope of a variable, if it doesn't have a scope call delay_span_bug, which avoids us trying to get a block/scope that doesn't exist.
Had to increase `ROOT_ENTRY_LIMIT` was getting tidy error
Create (unstable) 2024 edition
[On Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Deprecating.20macro.20scoping.20shenanigans/near/272860652), there was a small aside regarding creating the 2024 edition now as opposed to later. There was a reasonable amount of support and no stated opposition.
This change creates the 2024 edition in the compiler and creates a prelude for the 2024 edition. There is no current difference between the 2021 and 2024 editions. Cargo and other tools will need to be updated separately, as it's not in the same repository. This change permits the vast majority of work towards the next edition to proceed _now_ instead of waiting until 2024.
For sanity purposes, I've merged the "hello" UI tests into a single file with multiple revisions. Otherwise we'd end up with a file per edition, despite them being essentially identical.
````@rustbot```` label +T-lang +S-waiting-on-review
Not sure on the relevant team, to be honest.
Stabilize `derive_default_enum`
This stabilizes `#![feature(derive_default_enum)]`, as proposed in [RFC 3107](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3107) and tracked in #87517. In short, it permits you to `#[derive(Default)]` on `enum`s, indicating what the default should be by placing a `#[default]` attribute on the desired variant (which must be a unit variant in the interest of forward compatibility).
```````@rustbot``````` label +S-waiting-on-review +T-lang
when checking pointee metadata, canonicalize the `Sized` check
Use `infcx.predicate_must_hold_modulo_regions` with a `Sized` obligation instead of just calling `ty.is_sized`, because the latter does not canonicalize region and type vars (and in the test case I added in this PR, there's a region var in the `ParamEnv`).
Fixes#95311
fix: wrong trait import suggestion for T:
The suggestion to bound `T` had an extra `:`.
```rust
fn foo<T:>(t: T) {
t.clone();
}
```
```
error[E0599]: no method named `clone` found for type parameter `T` in the current scope
--> src/lib.rs:2:7
|
2 | t.clone();
| ^^^^^ method not found in `T`
|
= help: items from traits can only be used if the type parameter is bounded by the trait
help: the following trait defines an item `clone`, perhaps you need to restrict type parameter `T` with it:
|
1 | fn foo<T: Clone:>(t: T) {
| ~~~~~~~~
```
Fixes: #95898
Improve Rustdoc UI for scraped examples with multiline arguments, fix overflow in line numbers
This PR improves a few aspects of the scrape examples feature in Rustdoc.
* Only function names and not the full call expression are highlighted.
* For call-sites with multiline arguments, the minimized code viewer will scroll to the top of the call-site rather than the middle if the argument is larger than the viewer size, ensuring that the function name is visible.
* This fixes an issue where the line numbers column had a visible x-scroll bar.
r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
prevent opaque types from appearing in impl headers
cc `@lqd`
opaque types are not distinguishable from their hidden type at the codegen stage. So we could either end up with cases where the hidden type doesn't implement the trait (which will thus ICE) or where the hidden type does implement the trait (so we'd be using its impl instead of the one written for the opaque type). This can even lead to unsound behaviour without unsafe code.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/86411.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84660.
rebase of #87382 plus some diagnostic tweaks
Fix suggestions in case of `T:` bounds
This PR fixes a corner case in `suggest_constraining_type_params` that was causing incorrect suggestions.
For the following functions:
```rust
fn a<T:>(t: T) { [t, t]; }
fn b<T>(t: T) where T: { [t, t]; }
```
We previously suggested the following:
```text
...
help: consider restricting type parameter `T`
|
1 | fn a<T: Copy:>(t: T) { [t, t]; }
| ++++++
...
help: consider further restricting this bound
|
2 | fn b<T>(t: T) where T: + Copy { [t, t]; }
| ++++++
```
Note that neither `T: Copy:` not `where T: + Copy` is a correct bound.
With this commit the suggestions are correct:
```text
...
help: consider restricting type parameter `T`
|
1 | fn a<T: Copy>(t: T) { [t, t]; }
| ++++
...
help: consider further restricting this bound
|
2 | fn b<T>(t: T) where T: Copy { [t, t]; }
| ++++
```
r? `@compiler-errors`
I've tried fixing #95898 here too, but got too confused with how `suggest_traits_to_import` works and what it does 😅
Rustdoc: Discriminate required and provided associated constants and types
Currently, rustdoc merely separates required and provided associated _functions_ (i.e. methods). This PR extends this to constants (fixes#94652) and types. This makes the documentation of all three kinds of associated items more alike and consistent.
As an aside, associated types may actually be provided / have a default when users enable the unstable feature `associated_type_defaults`.
| Before | After |
|---|---|
|  |  |
|  |  |
### `clean::types::ItemKind` modification
* `ItemKind::TypedefItem(.., true)` → `ItemKind::AssocTypeItem(..)`
* `ItemKind::TypedefItem(.., false)` → `ItemKind::TypedefItem(..)`
Further, I added `ItemKind::TyAssoc{Const,Type}Item`, the “required” variant of `ItemKind::Assoc{Const,Type}Item`, analogous to `ItemKind::TyMethodItem` with `ItemKind::MethodItem`. These new variants don't contain new information really, they are just the result of me getting rid of the `Option<_>` field in `AssocConstItem` and `AssocTypeItem`.
**Goal**: Make associated items more consistent.
Originally I thought modifying `ItemKind` was necessary to achieve the new functionality of this PR but in retrospect, it does not. If you don't like the changes to `ItemKind`, I think I _can_ get rid of them.
This change is the root cause of those tiny changes in a lot of different files.
### Concerns and Open Questions
* **breaking changes** to hyperlinks: Some heading IDs change:
* `associated-const` (sic!) -> `{provided,required}-associated-consts`
* `associated-types` -> `{provided,required}-associated-types`
* **verbosity** of the headings _{Required,Provided} Associated {Constants,Types}_
* For some files, I am not sure if the changes I made are correct. So please take extra care when reviewing `conversions.rs` (conversion to JSON), `cache.rs`/`fold_item`, `stripper.rs`/`fold_item`, `check_doc_test_visibility.rs`/`should_have_doc_example`, `collect_intra_doc_links.rs`/`from_assoc_item`
* JSON output: I still map `AssocTypeItem`s to `Typedef` etc. (FIXME)
Instead of checking only the user provided sysroot or the default (when
no sysroot is provided), search user provided sysroot and then check
default sysroots for locale requested by the user.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
use `Span::find_ancestor_inside` to get right span in CastCheck
This is a quick fix. This bad suggestion likely lives in other places... but thought it would be useful to fix all of the CastCheck ones first.
Let me know if reviewer would prefer I add more tests for each of the diagnostics in CastCheck, or would like to do a more thorough review of other suggestions that use spans in typeck. I would also be open to further suggestions on how to better expose an API that gives us the "best" span for a diagnostic suggestion.
Fixed#95919
Fix crate_type attribute to not warn on duplicates
In #88681 I accidentally marked the `crate_type` attribute as only allowing a single attribute. However, multiple attributes are allowed (they are joined together [here](027a232755/compiler/rustc_interface/src/util.rs (L530-L542))). This fixes it to not report a warning if duplicates are found.
Closes#95902
Document the current MIR semantics that are clear from existing code
This PR adds documentation to places, operands, rvalues, statementkinds, and terminatorkinds that describes their existing semantics and requirements. In many places the semantics depend on the Rust memory model or other T-Lang decisions - when this is the case, it is just noted as such with links to UCG issues where possible. I'm hopeful that none of the documentation added here can be used to justify optimizations that depend on the memory model. The documentation for places and operands probably comes closest to running afoul of this - if people think that it cannot be merged as is, it can definitely also be taken out.
The goal here is to only document parts of MIR that seem to be decided already, or are at least depended on by existing code. That leaves quite a number of open questions - those are marked as "needs clarification." I'm not sure what to do with those in this PR - we obviously can't decide all these questions here. Should I just leave them in as is? Take them out? Keep them in but as `//` instead of `///` comments?
If this is too big to review at once, I can split this up.
r? rust-lang/mir-opt
Fix miscompilation of inline assembly with outputs in cases where we emit an invoke instead of call instruction.
We ran into this bug where rustc would segfault while trying to compile certain uses of inline assembly.
Here is a simple repro that demonstrates the issue:
```rust
#![feature(asm_unwind)]
fn main() {
let _x = String::from("string here just cause we need something with a non-trivial drop");
let foo: u64;
unsafe {
std::arch::asm!(
"mov {}, 1",
out(reg) foo,
options(may_unwind)
);
}
println!("{}", foo);
}
```
([playground link](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=7d6641e83370d2536a07234aca2498ff))
But crucially `feature(asm_unwind)` is not actually needed and this can be triggered on stable as a result of the way async functions/generators are handled in the compiler. e.g.:
```rust
extern crate futures; // 0.3.21
async fn bar() {
let foo: u64;
unsafe {
std::arch::asm!(
"mov {}, 1",
out(reg) foo,
);
}
println!("{}", foo);
}
fn main() {
futures::executor::block_on(bar());
}
```
([playground link](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=1c7781c34dd4a3e80ae4bd936a0c82fc))
An example of the incorrect LLVM generated:
```llvm
bb1: ; preds = %start
%1 = invoke i64 asm sideeffect alignstack inteldialect unwind "mov ${0:q}, 1", "=&r,~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{memory}"()
to label %bb2 unwind label %cleanup, !srcloc !9
store i64 %1, i64* %foo, align 8
bb2:
[...snip...]
```
The store should not be placed after the asm invoke but rather should be in the normal control flow basic block (`bb2` in this case).
[Here](https://gist.github.com/luqmana/be1af5b64d2cda5a533e3e23a7830b44) is a writeup of the investigation that lead to finding this.
[`let_chains`] Forbid `let` inside parentheses
Parenthesizes are mostly a no-op in let chains, in other words, they are mostly ignored.
```rust
let opt = Some(Some(1i32));
if (let Some(a) = opt && (let Some(b) = a)) && b == 1 {
println!("`b` is declared inside but used outside");
}
```
As seen above, such behavior can lead to confusion.
A proper fix or nested encapsulation would probably require research, time and a modified MIR graph so in this PR I simply denied any `let` inside parentheses. Non-let stuff are still allowed.
```rust
fn main() {
let fun = || true;
if let true = (true && fun()) && (true) {
println!("Allowed");
}
}
```
It is worth noting that `let ...` is not an expression and the RFC did not mention this specific situation.
cc `@matthewjasper`
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #95743 (Update binary_search example to instead redirect to partition_point)
- #95771 (Update linker-plugin-lto.md to 1.60)
- #95861 (Note that CI tests Windows 10)
- #95875 (bootstrap: show available paths help text for aliased subcommands)
- #95876 (Add a note for unsatisfied `~const Drop` bounds)
- #95907 (address fixme for diagnostic variable name)
- #95917 (thin_box test: import from std, not alloc)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Only suggest removing semicolon when expression is compatible with `impl Trait`
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54771#issuecomment-476423690
> It still needs checking that the last statement's expr can actually conform to the trait, but the naïve behavior is there.
Only suggest removing a semicolon when the type behind the semicolon actually implements the trait in an RPIT `-> impl Trait`. Also upgrade the label that suggests removing the semicolon to a suggestion (should it be verbose?).
cc #54771
