resolve: improve "try using the enum's variant"
Fixes#73427.
This PR improves the "try using the enum's variant" suggestion:
- Variants in suggestions would not result in more errors (e.g. use of a struct variant is only suggested if the suggestion can trivially construct that variant). Therefore, suggestions are only emitted for variants that have no fields (since the suggestion can't know what value fields would have).
- Suggestions include the syntax for constructing the variant. If a struct or tuple variant is suggested, then it is constructed in the suggestion - unless in pattern-matching or when arguments are already provided.
- A help message is added which mentions the variants which are no longer suggested.
All of the diagnostic logic introduced by this PR is separated from the normal code path for a successful compilation.
r? `@estebank`
Add some regression tests
Closes#66501Closes#68951Closes#72565Closes#74244Closes#75299
The first issue is fixed in 1.43.0, other issues are fixed in the recent nightly.
Split sys_common::Mutex in StaticMutex and MovableMutex.
The (unsafe) `Mutex` from `sys_common` had a rather complicated interface. You were supposed to call `init()` manually, unless you could guarantee it was neither moved nor used reentrantly.
Calling `destroy()` was also optional, although it was unclear if 1) resources might be leaked or not, and 2) if `destroy()` should only be called when `init()` was called.
This allowed for a number of interesting (confusing?) different ways to use this `Mutex`, all captured in a single type.
In practice, this type was only ever used in two ways:
1. As a static variable. In this case, neither `init()` nor `destroy()` are called. The variable is never moved, and it is never used reentrantly. It is only ever locked using the `LockGuard`, never with `raw_lock`.
2. As a `Box`ed variable. In this case, both `init()` and `destroy()` are called, it will be moved and possibly used reentrantly.
No other combinations are used anywhere in `std`.
This change simplifies things by splitting this `Mutex` type into two types matching the two use cases: `StaticMutex` and `MovableMutex`.
The interface of both new types is now both safer and simpler. The first one does not call nor expose `init`/`destroy`, and the second one calls those automatically in its `new()` and `Drop` functions. Also, the locking functions of `MovableMutex` are no longer unsafe.
---
This will also make it easier to conditionally box mutexes later, by moving that decision into sys/sys_common. Some of the mutex implementations (at least those of Wasm and 'sys/unsupported') are safe to move, so wouldn't need a box. ~~(But that's blocked on #76932 for now.)~~ (See #77380.)
Overhaul const-checking diagnostics
The primary purpose of this PR was to remove `NonConstOp::STOPS_CONST_CHECKING`, which causes any additional errors found by the const-checker to be silenced. I used this flag to preserve diagnostic parity with `qualify_min_const_fn.rs`, which has since been removed.
However, simply removing the flag caused a deluge of errors in some cases, since an error would be emitted any time a local or temporary had a wrong type. To remedy this, I added an alternative system (`DiagnosticImportance`) to silence additional error messages that were likely to distract the user from the underlying issue. When an error of the highest importance occurs, all less important errors are silenced. When no error of the highest importance occurs, all less important errors are emitted after checking is complete. Following the suggestions from the important error is usually enough to fix the less important errors, so this should lead to better UX most of the time.
There's also some unrelated diagnostics improvements in this PR isolated in their own commits. Splitting them out would be possible, but a bit of a pain. This isn't as tidy as some of my other PRs, but it should *only* affect diagnostics, never whether or not something passes const-checking. Note that there are a few trivial exceptions to this, like banning `Yield` in all const-contexts, not just `const fn`.
As always, meant to be reviewed commit-by-commit.
r? `@oli-obk`
This commit improves the "try using the enum's variant" suggestion:
- Variants in suggestions would not result in more errors (e.g. use
of a struct variant is only suggested if the suggestion can
trivially construct that variant). Therefore, suggestions are only
emitted for variants that have no fields (since the suggestion
can't know what value fields would have).
- Suggestions include the syntax for constructing the variant. If a
struct or tuple variant is suggested, then it is constructed in the
suggestion - unless in pattern-matching or when arguments are already
provided.
- A help message is added which mentions the variants which are no
longer suggested.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
Remove `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_ptr]` and add `#![feature(const_fn_fn_ptr_basics)]`
`rustc_allow_const_fn_ptr` was a hack to work around the lack of an escape hatch for the "min `const fn`" checks in const-stable functions. Now that we have co-opted `allow_internal_unstable` for this purpose, we no longer need a bespoke attribute.
Now this functionality is gated under `const_fn_fn_ptr_basics` (how concise!), and `#[allow_internal_unstable(const_fn_fn_ptr_basics)]` replaces `#[rustc_allow_const_fn_ptr]`. `const_fn_fn_ptr_basics` allows function pointer types to appear in the arguments and locals of a `const fn` as well as function pointer casts to be performed inside a `const fn`. Both of these were allowed in constants and statics already. Notably, this does **not** allow users to invoke function pointers in a const context. Presumably, we will use a nicer name for that (`const_fn_ptr`?).
r? @oli-obk
diag: improve closure/generic parameter mismatch
Fixes#51154.
This PR improves the diagnostic when a type parameter is expected and a closure is found, noting that each closure has a distinct type and therefore could not always match the caller-chosen type of the parameter.
r? @estebank
This test checks if the compiler complains about accesing a private
field before complaining (or crashing) about the private function on it
not marked as stable/unstable.
The interface of the internal type (sys_common's Mutex) used for this
was changed. With this change, it uses another function to test for the
same issue.
Validate constants during `const_eval_raw`
This PR implements the groundwork for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/72396
* constants are now validated during `const_eval_raw`
* to prevent cycle errors, we do not validate references to statics anymore beyond the fact that they are not dangling
* the `const_eval` query ICEs if used on `static` items
* as a side effect promoteds are now evaluated to `ConstValue::Scalar` again (since they are just a reference to the actual promoted allocation in most cases).
give *even better* suggestion when matching a const range
notice that the err already has "constant defined here"
so this is now *exceedingly clear*
extension to #76222
r? @estebank
Mostly to fix ui/issues/issue-37311-type-length-limit/issue-37311.rs.
Most parts of the compiler can handle deeply nested types with a lot
of duplicates just fine, but some parts still attempt to naively
traverse type tree.
Before such problems were caught by type length limit check,
but now these places will have to be changed to handle
duplicated types gracefully.
This fixes#72408.
Nested closures were resulting in exponential compilation time.
As a performance optimization this change introduces MiniSet,
which is a simple small storage optimized set.
This commit improves the diagnostic when a type parameter is expected
and a closure is found, noting that each closure has a distinct type and
therefore could not always match the caller-chosen type of the
parameter.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
Validate built-in attribute placement
Closes#54584, closes#47725, closes#54044.
I've changed silently ignoring some incorrectly placed attributes to errors. I'm not sure what the policy is since this can theoretically break code (should they be warnings instead? does it warrant a crater run?).
Give better suggestion when const Range*'s are used as patterns
Fixes#76191
let me know if there is more/different information you want to show in this case
Give better diagnostic when using a private tuple struct constructor
Fixes#75907
Some notes:
1. This required some deep changes, including removing a Copy impl for PatKind. If some tests fail, I would still appreciate review on the overall approach
2. this only works with basic patterns (no wildcards for example), and fails if there is any problems getting the visibility of the fields (i am not sure what the failure that can happen in resolve_visibility_speculative, but we check the length of our fields in both cases against each other, so if anything goes wrong, we fall back to the worse error. This could be extended to more patterns
3. this does not yet deal with #75906, but I believe it will be similar
4. let me know if you want more tests
5. doesn't yet at the suggestion that `@yoshuawuyts` suggested at the end of their issue, but that could be added relatively easily (i believe)
This commit adjusts the missing field diagnostic logic for struct
patterns in typeck to improve the diagnostic when the missing fields are
inaccessible.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
This commit adjusts the missing field diagnostic logic for struct
expressions in typeck to improve the diagnostic when the missing
fields are inaccessible.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
