Always try to project predicates when finding auto traits in rustdoc
Fixes#60726
Previous, AutoTraitFinder would only try to project predicates when the
predicate type contained an inference variable. When finding auto
traits, we only project to try to unify inference variables - we don't
otherwise learn any new information about the required bounds.
However, this lead to failing to properly generate a negative auto trait
impl (indicating that a type never implements a certain auto trait) in
the following unusual scenario:
In almost all cases, a type has an (implicit) negative impl of an auto
trait due some other type having an explicit *negative* impl of that
auto trait. For example:
struct MyType<T> {
field: *const T
}
has an implicit 'impl<T> !Send for MyType<T>', due to the explicit
negative impl (in libcore) 'impl<T: ?Sized> !Send for *const T'.
However, as exposed by the 'abi_stable' crate, this isn't always the
case. This minimzed example shows how a type can never implement
'Send', due to a projection error:
```
pub struct True;
pub struct False;
pub trait MyTrait {
type Project;
}
pub struct MyStruct<T> {
field: T
}
impl MyTrait for u8 {
type Project = False;
}
unsafe impl<T> Send for MyStruct<T>
where T: MyTrait<Project=True> {}
pub struct Wrapper {
inner: MyStruct<u8>
}
```
In this example, `<u8 as MyTrait>::Project == True'
must hold for 'MyStruct<u8>: Send' to hold.
However, '<u8 as MyTrait>::Project == False' holds instead
To properly account for this unusual case, we need to call
'poly_project_and_unify' on *all* predicates, not just those with
inference variables. This ensures that we catch the projection error
that occurs above, and don't incorrectly determine that 'Wrapper: Send'
holds.
Fix intra-doc link resolution failure on re-exporting libstd
Currently, re-exporting libstd items as below will [occur a lot of failures](https://gist.github.com/taiki-e/e33e0e8631ef47f65a74a3b69f456366).
```rust
pub use std::*;
```
Until the underlying issue (#56922) fixed, we can fix that so they don't propagate to downstream crates.
Related: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/56941 (That PR fixed failures that occur when re-exporting from libcore to libstd.)
r? @QuietMisdreavus
rustdoc: set the default edition when pre-parsing a doctest
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/59313 (possibly more? i think we've had issues with parsing edition-specific syntax in doctests at some point)
When handling a doctest, rustdoc needs to parse it beforehand, so that it can see whether it declares a `fn main` or `extern crate my_crate` explicitly. However, while doing this, rustdoc doesn't set the "default edition" used by the parser like the regular compilation runs do. This caused a problem when parsing a doctest with an `async move` block in it, since it was expecting the `move` keyword to start a closure, not a block.
This PR changes the `rustdoc::test::make_test` function to set the parser's default edition while looking for a main function and `extern crate` statement. However, to do this, `make_test` needs to know what edition to set. Since this is also used during the HTML rendering process (to make playground URLs), now the HTML renderer needs to know about the default edition. Upshot: rendering standalone markdown files can now accept a "default edition" for their doctests with the `--edition` flag! (I'm pretty sure i waffled around how to set that a long time ago when we first added the `--edition` flag... `>_>`)
I'm posting this before i stop for the night so that i can write this description while it's still in my head, but before this merges i want to make sure that (1) the `rustdoc-ui/failed-doctest-output` test still works (i expect it doesn't), and (2) i add a test with the sample from the linked issue.
Fixes#60726
Previous, AutoTraitFinder would only try to project predicates when the
predicate type contained an inference variable. When finding auto
traits, we only project to try to unify inference variables - we don't
otherwise learn any new information about the required bounds.
However, this lead to failing to properly generate a negative auto trait
impl (indicating that a type never implements a certain auto trait) in
the following unusual scenario:
In almost all cases, a type has an (implicit) negative impl of an auto
trait due some other type having an explicit *negative* impl of that
auto trait. For example:
struct MyType<T> {
field: *const T
}
has an implicit 'impl<T> !Send for MyType<T>', due to the explicit
negative impl (in libcore) 'impl<T: ?Sized> !Send for *const T'.
However, as exposed by the 'abi_stable' crate, this isn't always the
case. This minimzed example shows how a type can never implement
'Send', due to a projection error:
```
pub struct True;
pub struct False;
pub trait MyTrait {
type Project;
}
pub struct MyStruct<T> {
field: T
}
impl MyTrait for u8 {
type Project = False;
}
unsafe impl<T> Send for MyStruct<T>
where T: MyTrait<Project=True> {}
pub struct Wrapper {
inner: MyStruct<u8>
}
```
In this example, `<u8 as MyTrait>::Project == True'
must hold for 'MyStruct<u8>: Send' to hold.
However, '<u8 as MyTrait>::Project == False' holds instead
To properly account for this unusual case, we need to call
'poly_project_and_unify' on *all* predicates, not just those with
inference variables. This ensures that we catch the projection error
that occurs above, and don't incorrectly determine that 'Wrapper: Send'
holds.
Fix index-page generation
Fixes#60096.
The minifier was minifying crates name in `searchIndex` key position, which was a bit problematic for multiple reasons.
r? @rust-lang/rustdoc
rustdoc: use --static-root-path for settings.js
At the time i was writing https://github.com/rust-lang/docs.rs/pull/332, i noticed that the `settings.js` file that was being loaded was not being loaded from the `--static-root-path`. This PR fixes that so that users on docs.rs can effectively cache this file.
rustdoc: don't process `Crate::external_traits` when collecting intra-doc links
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/58745, closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/58917
The `collect-intra-doc-links` pass keeps track of the modules it recurses through as it processes items. This is used to know what module to give the resolver when looking up links. When looking through the regular items of the crate, this works fine, but the `DocFolder` trait as written doesn't just process the main crate hierarchy - it also processes the trait items in the `external_traits` map. This is useful for other passes (so they can strip out `#[doc(hidden)]` items, for example), but here it creates a situation where we're processing items "outside" the regular module hierarchy. Since everything in `external_traits` is defined outside the current crate, we can't fall back to finding its module scope like we do with local items.
Skipping this collection saves us from emitting some spurious warnings. We don't even lose anything by skipping it, either - the docs loaded from here are only ever rendered through `html::render::document_short` which strips any links out, so the fact that the links haven't been loaded doesn't matter. Hopefully this removes most of the remaining spurious resolution warnings from intra-doc links.
r? @GuillaumeGomez
- Makes the warning part of the `intra_doc_link_resolution_failure`
lint.
- Tightens the span to just the ambiguous link.
- Reports ambiguities across all three namespaces.
- Uses structured suggestions for disambiguation.
- Adds a test for the warnings.
Modify doctest's auto-`fn main()` to allow `Result`s
This lets the default `fn main()` ~~return `impl Termination`~~ unwrap Results, which allows the use of `?` in most tests without adding it manually. This fixes#56260
~~Blocked on `std::process::Termination` stabilization.~~
Using `Termination` would have been cleaner, but this should work OK.
Rustdoc remove old style files
Reopening of #56577 (which I can't seem to reopen...).
I made the flag unstable so with this change, what was blocking the PR is now gone I assume.
Ignore future deprecations in #[deprecated]
The future deprecation warnings should only apply to `#[rustc_deprecated]` as they take into account rustc's version. Fixes#57952.
I've also slightly modified rustdoc's display of future deprecation notices to make it more consistent, so I'm assigning a rustdoc team member for review to make sure this is okay.
r? @GuillaumeGomez
Cosmetic improvements to doc comments
This has been factored out from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/58036 to only include changes to documentation comments (throughout the rustc codebase).
r? @steveklabnik
Once you're happy with this, maybe we could get it through with r=1, so it doesn't constantly get invalidated? (I'm not sure this will be an issue, but just in case...) Anyway, thanks for your advice so far!
