const-eval error: always say in which item the error occurred
I don't see why "is this generic" should make a difference. It may be reasonable to key this on whether the error occurs in a `const fn` that was invoked by a const (making it non-obvious which constant it is) vs inside the body of the const.
r? `@oli-obk`
Replace some `Option<Span>` with `Span` and use DUMMY_SP instead of None
Turns out many locations actually have a span available that we could use, so I used it
Add a new `mismatched-lifetime-syntaxes` lint
The lang-team [discussed this](https://hackmd.io/nf4ZUYd7Rp6rq-1svJZSaQ) and I attempted to [summarize](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120808#issuecomment-2701863833) their decision. The summary-of-the-summary is:
- Using two different kinds of syntax for elided lifetimes is confusing. In rare cases, it may even [lead to unsound code](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48686)! Some examples:
```rust
// Lint will warn about these
fn(v: ContainsLifetime) -> ContainsLifetime<'_>;
fn(&'static u8) -> &u8;
```
- Matching up references with no lifetime syntax, references with anonymous lifetime syntax, and paths with anonymous lifetime syntax is an exception to the simplest possible rule:
```rust
// Lint will not warn about these
fn(&u8) -> &'_ u8;
fn(&'_ u8) -> &u8;
fn(&u8) -> ContainsLifetime<'_>;
```
- Having a lint for consistent syntax of elided lifetimes will make the [future goal](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91639) of warning-by-default for paths participating in elision much simpler.
---
This new lint attempts to accomplish the goal of enforcing consistent syntax. In the process, it supersedes and replaces the existing `elided-named-lifetimes` lint, which means it starts out life as warn-by-default.
jsondocck: Refactor directive handling
Best reviewed commit by commit.
1. Moves directive handling into its own file. This makes it easier to link to in the dev-guide (https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/2422#discussion_r2112724234), but also makes the code nicer in it's own right
2. Renames command to directive. This is what compiletest uses, and it's nice to not have 2 words for this.
r? ``@GuillaumeGomez``
UnsafePinned: also include the effects of UnsafeCell
This tackles https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/137750 by including an `UnsafeCell` in `UnsafePinned`, thus imbuing it with all the usual properties of interior mutability (no `noalias` nor `dereferenceable` on shared refs, special treatment by Miri's aliasing model). The soundness issue is not fixed yet because coroutine lowering does not use `UnsafePinned`.
The RFC said that `UnsafePinned` would not permit mutability on shared references, but since then, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/137750 has demonstrated that this is not tenable. In the face of those examples, I propose that we do the "obvious" thing and permit shared mutable state inside `UnsafePinned`. This seems loosely consistent with the fact that we allow going from `Pin<&mut T>` to `&T` (where the former can be aliased with other pointers that perform mutation, and hence the same goes for the latter) -- but the `as_ref` example shows that we in fact would need to add this `UnsafeCell` even if we didn't have a safe conversion to `&T`, since for the compiler and Miri, `&T` and `Pin<&T>` are basically the same type.
To make this possible, I had to remove the `Copy` and `Clone` impls for `UnsafePinned`.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125735
Cc ``@rust-lang/lang`` ``@rust-lang/opsem`` ``@Sky9x``
I don't think this needs FCP since the type is still unstable -- we'll finally decide whether we like this approach when `UnsafePinned` is moved towards stabilization (IOW, this PR is reversible). However, I'd still like to make sure that the lang team is okay with the direction I am proposing here.
Fix incorrect eq_unspanned in TokenStream
Fixesrust-lang/rust#141522
r? ``@workingjubilee``
should we remove this function?
since it's used in several places, i'd prefer to keep it.
