Format core and std macro rules, removing needless surrounding blocks
Many of the asserting and printing macros in `core` and `std` are written with prehistoric-looking formatting, like this:
335ffbfa54/library/std/src/macros.rs (L96-L101)
In modern Rust style this would conventionally be written as follows instead, always using braces and a trailing semicolon on the macro arms:
af53809c87/library/std/src/macros.rs (L98-L105)
Getting rid of the unneeded braces inside the expansion reduces extraneous indentation in macro-expanded code. For example:
```rust
println!("repro {}", true);
```
```rust
// before:
{
::std::io::_print(
::core::fmt::Arguments::new_v1(
&["repro ", "\n"],
&[::core::fmt::ArgumentV1::new_display(&true)],
),
);
};
```
```rust
// after:
::std::io::_print(
::core::fmt::Arguments::new_v1(
&["repro ", "\n"],
&[::core::fmt::ArgumentV1::new_display(&true)],
),
);
```
This makes the order of the output always consistent:
1. Place of the `match` missing arms
2. The `enum` definition span
3. The structured suggestion to add a fallthrough arm
Add test cases for unstable variants
Add test cases for doc hidden variants
Move is_doc_hidden to method on TyCtxt
Add unstable variants test to reachable-patterns ui test
Rename reachable-patterns -> omitted-patterns
Normalize after substituting via `field.ty()`
Back in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/72476 I hadn't understood where the problem was coming from, and only worked around the issue. What happens is that calling `field.ty()` on a field of a generic struct substitutes the appropriate generics but doesn't normalize the resulting type.
As a consumer of types I'm surprised that one would substitute without normalizing, feels like a footgun, so I added a comment.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89393.
Add an intermediate representation to exhaustiveness checking
The exhaustiveness checking algorithm keeps deconstructing patterns into a `Constructor` and some `Fields`, but does so a bit all over the place. This PR introduces a new representation for patterns that already has that information, so we only compute it once at the start.
I find this makes code easier to follow. In particular `DeconstructedPat::specialize` is a lot simpler than what happened before, and more closely matches the description of the algorithm. I'm also hoping this could help for the project of librarifying exhaustiveness for rust_analyzer since it decouples the algorithm from `rustc_middle::Pat`.
Now `Fields` is just a `Vec` of patterns, with some extra info on the
side to reconstruct patterns when needed. This emphasizes that this
extra info is not central to the algorithm.
* On suggestions that include deletions, use a diff inspired output format
* When suggesting addition, use `+` as underline
* Color highlight modified span
This is step 2 towards fixing #77548.
In the codegen and codegen-units test suites, the `//` comment markers
were kept in order not to affect any source locations. This is because
these tests cannot be automatically `--bless`ed.
Identify unreachable subpatterns more reliably
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80104 I used `Span`s to identify unreachable sub-patterns in the presence of or-patterns during exhaustiveness checking. In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80501 it was revealed that `Span`s are complicated and that this was not a good idea.
Instead, this PR identifies subpatterns logically: as a path in the tree of subpatterns of a given pattern. I made a struct that captures a set of such subpatterns. This is a bit complex, but thankfully self-contained; the rest of the code does not need to know anything about it.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80501. I think I managed to keep the perf neutral.
r? `@varkor`
Rust prints "type `&A` is non-empty" even is A is empty.
This is the intended behavior, but can be confusing.
This commit adds a note to non-exhaustive pattern errors if they are a
reference to something uninhabited.
I did not add tests to check that the note is not shown for
non-references or inhabited references, because this is already done
in other tests.
Maybe the added test is superfluous, because
`always-inhabited-union-ref` already checks for this case.
This does not handle &&Void or &&&void etc. I could add those as special
cases as well and ignore people who need quadruple
references.
Fixes#78123
Rename `overlapping_patterns` lint
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65477. I also tweaked a few things along the way.
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` modify labels: +A-exhaustiveness-checking
