Move tooltips messages out of html
First thing first: nothing in the output has changed. You still have the "i" on the left of code blocks examples when they have `ignore`, `compile_fail`, `should_panic` and `edition`. The behavior also remains the same: when you hover the "i", you have the corresponding message showing up.
So now, why this PR then? I realized recently that we were actually generating those messages into the HTML every time whereas all messages are the same (except for the edition ones, I'll come back to it later). So instead of generating more content, I simply moved it inside the CSS thanks to pseudo elements (`::before` and `::after`). The message is now inside `::after` and we use the `::before` to have the small triangle on the left of the message. So now, we have less HTML generated which is seems pretty nice.
So now, back to the `edition` change: the message is globally the same, but the "edition" itself can be different (2015 or 2018 currently, I expect 2021 to arrive not too far in the future). So the only difference for it is that I added a new attribute on the tooltip called `edition` which contains this information. Then, the `::after` uses it inside its `content` (you can get the content of an element's attribute by using `attr` and concat different strings by simply having them after the other).
Don't hesitate if a part of my explanations isn't clear.
r? `@jyn514`
Deprecate atomic compare_and_swap method
Finish implementing [RFC 1443](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1443-extended-compare-and-swap.md) (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1443).
It was decided to deprecate `compare_and_swap` [back in Rust 1.12 already](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/31767#issuecomment-215903038). I can't find any info about that decision being reverted. My understanding is just that it has been forgotten. If there has been a decision on keeping `compare_and_swap` then it's hard to find, and even if this PR does not go through it can act as a place where people can find out about the decision being reverted.
Atomic operations are hard to understand, very hard. And it does not help that there are multiple similar methods to do compare and swap with. They are so similar that for a reader it might be hard to understand the difference. This PR aims to make that simpler by finally deprecating `compare_and_swap` which is essentially just a more limited version of `compare_exchange`. The documentation is also updated (according to the RFC text) to explain the differences a bit better.
Even if we decide to not deprecate `compare_and_swap`. I still think the documentation for the atomic operations should be improved to better describe their differences and similarities. And the documentation can be written nicer than the PR currently proposes, but I wanted to start somewhere. Most of it is just copied from the RFC.
The documentation for `compare_exchange` and `compare_exchange_weak` indeed describe how they work! The problem is that they are more complex and harder to understand than `compare_and_swap`. So for someone who does not fully grasp this they might fall back to using `compare_and_swap`. Making the documentation outline the similarities and differences might build a bridge for people so they can cross over to the more powerful and sometimes more efficient operations.
The conversions I do to avoid the `std` internal deprecation errors are very straight forward `compare_and_swap -> compare_exchange` changes where the orderings are just using the mapping in the new documentation. Only in one place did I use `compare_exchange_weak`. This can probably be improved further. But the goal here was not for those operations to be perfect. Just to not get worse and to allow the deprecation to happen.
Remove redundant test
Remove ignored test. This test can also be found at src/test/rustdoc-ui/intra-doc/double-anchor.rs and the second version isn't ignored.
r? ``@jyn514``
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
Acknowledge that `[CONST; N]` is stable
When `const_in_array_repeat_expressions` (RFC 2203) got unstably implemented as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61749, accidentally, the special case of repeating a *constant* got stabilized immediately. That is why the following code works on stable:
```rust
const EMPTY: Vec<i32> = Vec::new();
pub const fn bar() -> [Vec<i32>; 2] {
[EMPTY; 2]
}
fn main() {
let x = bar();
}
```
In contrast, if we had written `[expr; 2]` for some expression that is not *literally* a constant but could be evaluated at compile-time (e.g. `(EMPTY,).0`), this would have failed.
We could take back this stabilization as it was clearly accidental. However, I propose we instead just officially accept this and stabilize a small subset of RFC 2203, while leaving the more complex case of general expressions that could be evaluated at compile-time unstable. Making that case work well is pretty much blocked on inline `const` expressions (to avoid relying too much on [implicit promotion](https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/blob/master/promotion.md)), so it could take a bit until it comes to full fruition. `[CONST; N]` is an uncontroversial subset of this feature that has no semantic ambiguities, does not rely on promotion, and basically provides the full expressive power of RFC 2203 but without the convenience (people have to define constants to repeat them, possibly using associated consts if generics are involved).
Well, I said "no semantic ambiguities", that is only almost true... the one point I am not sure about is `[CONST; 0]`. There are two possible behaviors here: either this is equivalent to `let x = CONST; [x; 0]`, or it is a NOP (if we argue that the constant is never actually instantiated). The difference between the two is that if `CONST` has a destructor, it should run in the former case (but currently doesn't, due to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74836); but should not run if it is considered a NOP. For regular `[x; 0]` there seems to be consensus on running drop (there isn't really an alternative); any opinions for the `CONST` special case? Should this instantiate the const only to immediately run its destructors? That seems somewhat silly to me. After all, the `let`-expansion does *not* work in general, for `N > 1`.
Cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval`
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49147
Fix pretty printing an AST representing `&(mut ident)`
The PR fixes a misguiding help diagnostic in the parser that I reported in #80186. I discovered that the parsers recovery and reporting logic was correct but the pretty printer produced wrong code for the example. (Details in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80186#issuecomment-748498676)
Example:
```rust
#![allow(unused_variables)]
fn main() {
let mut &x = &0;
}
```
The AST fragment
`PatKind::Ref(PatKind::Ident(BindingMode::ByValue(Mutability::Mut), ..), Mutability::Not)`
was printed to be `&mut ident`. But this wouldn't round trip through parsing again, because then it would be:
`PatKind::Ref(PatKind::Ident(BindingMode::ByValue(Mutability::Not), ..), Mutability::Mut)`
Now the pretty-printer prints `&(mut ident)`. Reparsing that code results in the AST fragment
`PatKind::Ref(PatKind::Paren(PatKind::Ident(BindingMode::ByValue(Mutability::Mut), ..)), Mutability::Not)`
which I think should behave like the original pattern.
Old diagnostic:
```
error: `mut` must be attached to each individual binding
--> src/main.rs:3:9
|
3 | let mut &x = &0;
| ^^^^^^ help: add `mut` to each binding: `&mut x`
|
= note: `mut` may be followed by `variable` and `variable @ pattern`
```
New diagnostic:
```
error: `mut` must be attached to each individual binding
--> src/main.rs:3:9
|
3 | let mut &x = &0;
| ^^^^^^ help: add `mut` to each binding: `&(mut x)`
|
= note: `mut` may be followed by `variable` and `variable @ pattern`
```
Fixes#80186
Handle desugaring in impl trait bound suggestion
Fixes#79843.
When an associated type of a generic function parameter needs extra bounds, the diagnostics may suggest replacing an `impl Trait` with a named type parameter so that it can be referenced in the where clause. On stable and nightly, the suggestion can be malformed, for instance transforming:
```rust
async fn run(_: &(), foo: impl Foo) -> std::io::Result<()>
```
Into:
```rust
async fn run(_: &, F: Foo(), foo: F) -> std::io::Result<()> where <F as Foo>::Bar: Send
^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Where we want something like:
```rust
async fn run<F: Foo>(_: &(), foo: F) -> std::io::Result<()> where <F as Foo>::Bar: Send
^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
The problem is that the elided lifetime of `&()` is added as a generic parameter when desugaring the async fn; the suggestion code sees this as an existing generic parameter and tries to use its span as an anchor to inject `F` into the parameter list. There doesn't seem to be an entirely principled way to check which generic parameters in the HIR were explicitly named in the source, so this commit changes the heuristics when generating the suggestion to only consider type parameters whose spans are contained within the span of the `Generics` when determining how to insert an additional type parameter into the declaration. (And to be safe it also excludes parameters whose spans are marked as originating from desugaring, although that doesn't seem to handle this elided lifetime.)
Turn quadratic time on number of impl blocks into linear time
Previously, if you had a lot of inherent impl blocks on a type like:
```Rust
struct Foo;
impl Foo { fn foo_1() {} }
// ...
impl Foo { fn foo_100_000() {} }
```
The compiler would be very slow at processing it, because
an internal algorithm would run in O(n^2), where n is the number
of impl blocks. Now, we add a new algorithm that allocates but
is faster asymptotically.
Comparing rustc nightly with a local build of rustc as of this PR (results in seconds):
| N | real time before | real time after |
| - | - | - |
| 4_000 | 0.57 | 0.46 |
| 8_000 | 1.31 | 0.84 |
| 16_000 | 3.56 | 1.69 |
| 32_000 | 10.60 | 3.73 |
I've tuned up the numbers to make the effect larger than the startup noise of rustc, but the asymptotic difference should hold for smaller n as well.
Note: current state of the PR omits error messages if there are other errors present already. For now, I'm mainly interested in a perf run to study whether this issue is present at all. Please queue one for this PR. Thanks!
Mark `-1` as an available niche for file descriptors
Based on discussion from <https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/can-the-standard-library-shrink-option-file/12768>, the file descriptor `-1` is chosen based on the POSIX API designs that use it as a sentinel to report errors. A bigger niche could've been chosen, particularly on Linux, but would not necessarily be portable.
This PR also adds a test case to ensure that the -1 niche (which is kind of hacky and has no obvious test case) works correctly. It requires the "upper" bound, which is actually -1, to be expressed in two's complement.
`PatKind::Ref(PatKind::Ident(BindingMode::ByValue(Mutability::Mut), ..), ..)`
is an AST representing `&(mut ident)`. It was errorneously printed as
`&mut ident` which reparsed into a syntactically different AST.
This affected help diagnostics in the parser.
Make BoundRegion have a kind of BoungRegionKind
Split from #76814
Also includes making `replace_escaping_bound_vars` only return `T`
Going to r? `@lcnr`
Feel free to reassign
or_patterns: implement :pat edition-specific behavior
cc #54883 `@joshtriplett`
This PR implements the edition-specific behavior of `:pat` wrt or-patterns, as determined by the crater runs and T-lang consensus in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54883#issuecomment-745509090.
I believe this can unblock stabilization of or_patterns.
r? `@petrochenkov`
const_evaluatable_checked: fix occurs check
fixes#79615
this is kind of a hack because we use `TypeRelation` for both the `Generalizer` and the `ConstInferUnifier` but i am not sure if there is a useful way to disentangle this without unnecessarily duplicating some code.
The error in the added test is kind of unavoidable until we erase the unused substs of `ConstKind::Unevaluated`. We talked a bit about this in the cg lazy norm meeting (https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/260443-project-const-generics/topic/lazy_normalization_consts)
Improve and fix diagnostics of exhaustiveness checking
Primarily, this fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/56379. This also fixes incorrect interactions between or-patterns and slice patterns that I discovered while working on #56379. Those two examples show the incorrect diagnostics:
```rust
match &[][..] {
[true] => {}
[true // detected as unreachable but that's not true
| false, ..] => {}
_ => {}
}
match (true, None) {
(true, Some(_)) => {}
(false, Some(true)) => {}
(true | false, None | Some(true // should be detected as unreachable
| false)) => {}
}
```
I did not measure any perf impact. However, I suspect that [`616ba9f`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80104/commits/616ba9f9f7f5845777a36e1a41a515e6c33a8776) should have a negative impact on large or-patterns. I'll see what the perf run says; I have optimization ideas up my sleeve if needed.
EDIT: I initially had a noticeable perf impact that I thought unavoidable. I then proceeded to avoid it x)
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` label +A-exhaustiveness-checking
passes: prohibit invalid attrs on generic params
Fixes#78957.
This PR modifies the `check_attr` pass so that attribute placement on generic parameters is checked for validity.
r? `@lcnr`
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #78164 (Prefer regions with an `external_name` in `approx_universal_upper_bound`)
- #80003 (Fix overflow when converting ZST Vec to VecDeque)
- #80023 (Enhance error message when misspelled label to value in break expression)
- #80046 (Add more documentation to `Diagnostic` and `DiagnosticBuilder`)
- #80109 (Remove redundant and unreliable coverage test results)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Remove redundant and unreliable coverage test results
The `coverage-reports` tests still generate counters and JSON reports
for inspection, but these files are no longer used in Makefile diffs, to
reduce complexity and confusion from unreliable or unexpected test
results, especially when maintaining them (i.e., generating `--bless`ed
results).
The associated `expected_` files for counters and JSON reports have been
removed, leaving only the files actually used for testing: the `llvm-cov
show` reports.
r? `@tmandry`
Tyler - as we discussed offline...
FYI: `@wesleywiser` `@Swatinem`
Arpad, depending on the timing of this PR, it may not affect you, but I'm removing some of the files that produce slightly different results on Windows as they really aren't necessary to validate coverage results.
Prefer regions with an `external_name` in `approx_universal_upper_bound`
Fixes#75785
When displaying a MIR borrowcheck error, we may need to find an upper
bound for a region, which gives us a region to point to in the error
message. However, a region might outlive multiple distinct universal
regions, in which case the only upper bound is 'static
To try to display a meaningful error message, we compute an
'approximate' upper bound by picking one of the universal regions.
Currently, we pick the region with the lowest index - however, this
caused us to produce a suboptimal error message in issue #75785
This PR `approx_universal_upper_bound` to prefer regions with an
`external_name`. This causes us to prefer regions from function
arguments/upvars, which seems to lead to a nicer error message in some
cases.
