resolve: Improve candidate search for unresolved macro suggestions
Use same scope visiting machinery for both collecting suggestion candidates and actually resolving the names.
The PR is better read in per-commit fashion with whitespace changes ignored (the first commit in particular moves some code around).
This should be the last pre-requisite for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/62086.
r? @davidtwco
Check that trait is exported or public before adding hint
Closes#62194.
This PR checks the `AccessLevels` of a trait to check whether adding the intercrate ambiguity hint is valid or not.
I am unsure of both the use of `.unwrap()` as well as removing hints for [downstream *and* [upstream](92b0f52584/src/librustc/traits/select.rs (L112-L142)).
Normally `#![feature(...)]` shouldn't change behavior, but custom attributes in particular are in the process of retirement, and we should not produce a message telling to enable them.
It also helps with unifying diagnostics for unresolved macros.
use visitor for #[structural_match] check
This changes the code so that we recur down the structure of a type of a const (rather than just inspecting at a shallow one or two levels) when we are looking to see if it has an ADT that did not derive `PartialEq` and `Eq`.
Fix#61188Fix#62307
Cc #62336
Raise the default recursion limit to 128
The previous limit of 64 is being (just) barely hit by genuine code out there, which is causing issues like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62059 to rear their end.
Ideally, we wouldn’t have such arbitrary limits at all, but while we do, it makes a lot of sense to just raise this limit whenever genuine use-cases end up hitting it.
r? @pnkfelix
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62059
Migrate `compile-pass` annotations to `build-pass`
This is a part of #62277.
As a first step, the `compile-pass` tests are migrated to `build-pass`.
r? @cramertj
cc @Centril
Stabilize `type_alias_enum_variants` in Rust 1.37.0
Stabilize `#![feature(type_alias_enum_variants)]` which allows type-relative resolution with highest priority to `enum` variants in both expression and pattern contexts. For example, you may now write:
```rust
enum Option<T> {
None,
Some(T),
}
type OptAlias<T> = Option<T>;
fn work_on_alias(x: Option<u8>) -> u8 {
match x {
OptAlias::Some(y) => y + 1,
OptAlias::None => 0,
}
}
```
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/2218
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52118
r? @petrochenkov
compiletest: Introduce `// {check,build,run}-pass` pass modes
Pass UI tests now have three modes
```
// check-pass
// build-pass
// run-pass
```
mirroring equivalent well-known `cargo` commands.
`// check-pass` will compile the test skipping codegen (which is expensive and isn't supposed to fail in most cases).
`// build-pass` will compile and link the test without running it.
`// run-pass` will compile, link and run the test.
Tests without a "pass" annotation are still considered "fail" tests.
Most UI tests would probably want to switch to `check-pass`.
Tests validating codegen would probably want to run the generated code as well and use `run-pass`.
`build-pass` should probably be rare (linking tests?).
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61755 will provide a way to run the tests with any mode, e.g. bump `check-pass` tests to `run-pass` to satisfy especially suspicious people, and be able to make sure that codegen doesn't breaks in some entirely unexpected way.
Tests marked with any mode are expected to pass with any other mode, if that's not the case for some legitimate reason, then the test should be made a "fail" test rather than a "pass" test.
Perhaps some secondary CI can verify this invariant, but that's not super urgent.
`// compile-pass` still works and is equivalent to `build-pass`.
Why is `// compile-pass` bad - 1) it gives an impression that the test is only compiled, but not linked, 2) it doesn't mirror a cargo command.
It can be removed some time in the future in a separate PR.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61712
