Rather than storing the relations between free-regions in a global
table, introduce a `FreeRegionMap` data structure. regionck computes the
`FreeRegionMap` for each fn and stores the result into the tcx so that
borrowck can use it (this could perhaps be refactored to have borrowck
recompute the map, but it's a bid tedious to recompute due to the
interaction of closures and free fns). The main reason to do this is
because of #22779 -- using a global table was incorrect because when
validating impl method signatures, we want to use the free region
relationships from the *trait*, not the impl.
Fixes#22779.
This PR uses the inline error suggestions introduced in #24242 to modify a few existing `help` messages. The new errors look like this:
foobar.rs:5:12: 5:25 error: expected a path on the left-hand side of `+`,
not `&'static Copy` [E0178]
foobar.rs:5 let x: &'static Copy + 'static;
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
foobar.rs:5:12: 5:35 help: try adding parentheses (per RFC 438):
foobar.rs: let x: &'static (Copy + 'static);
foobar.rs:2:13: 2:23 error: cast to unsized type: `&_` as `core::marker::Copy`
foobar.rs:2 let x = &1 as Copy;
^~~~~~~~~~
foobar.rs:2:19: 2:23 help: try casting to a reference instead:
foobar.rs: let x = &1 as &Copy;
foobar.rs:7:24: 7:25 error: expected expression, found `;`
foobar.rs:7 let x = box (1 + 1);
^
foobar.rs:7:13: 7:16 help: try using `box()` instead:
foobar.rs: let x = box() (1 + 1);
This also modifies compiletest to give the ability to directly test suggestions given by error messages.
Check for duplicate loop labels in function bodies.
See also: http://internals.rust-lang.org/t/psa-rejecting-duplicate-loop-labels/1833
The change, which we are putting in as future-proofing in preparation for future potential additions to the language (namely labeling arbitrary blocks and using those labels in borrow expressions), means that code like this will start emitting warnings:
```rust
fn main() {
{ 'a: loop { break; } }
{ 'a: loop { break; } }
}
```
To make the above code compile without warnings, write this instead:
```rust
fn main() {
{ 'a: loop { break; } }
{ 'b: loop { break; } }
}
```
Since this change is only introducing a new warnings, this change is non-breaking.
Fix#21633
PR #24242 added the ability to the compiler to directly give suggestions about
how to modify code to fix an error. The new errors look like this:
foobar.rs:5:12: 5:25 error: expected a path on the left-hand side of `+`,
not `&'static Copy` [E0178]
foobar.rs:5 let x: &'static Copy + 'static;
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
foobar.rs:5:12: 5:35 help: try adding parentheses (per RFC 438):
foobar.rs: let x: &'static (Copy + 'static);
foobar.rs:2:13: 2:23 error: cast to unsized type: `&_` as `core::marker::Copy`
foobar.rs:2 let x = &1 as Copy;
^~~~~~~~~~
foobar.rs:2:19: 2:23 help: try casting to a reference instead:
foobar.rs: let x = &1 as &Copy;
foobar.rs:7:24: 7:25 error: expected expression, found `;`
foobar.rs:7 let x = box (1 + 1);
^
foobar.rs:7:13: 7:16 help: try using `box()` instead:
foobar.rs: let x = box() (1 + 1);
This also modifies compiletest to give the ability to directly test suggestions
given by error messages.
At the moment, when compilation is stopped at a stop point (like `-Z parse-only`), `rustc` does not return an nonzero exit code even if there are errors (expect fatal ones, that cause it to panic immediately). As an example, compiling `src/test/compile-fail/doc-before-semi.rs` with `-Z parse-only` raises an error, but exists with 0.
Note that I could not use `sess.abort_if_errors()` in the macro, because `sess` is passed by value and move at some point.
table, introduce a `FreeRegionMap` data structure. regionck computes the
`FreeRegionMap` for each fn and stores the result into the tcx so that
borrowck can use it (this could perhaps be refactored to have borrowck
recompute the map, but it's a bid tedious to recompute due to the
interaction of closures and free fns). The main reason to do this is
because of #22779 -- using a global table was incorrect because when
validating impl method signatures, we want to use the free region
relationships from the *trait*, not the impl.
Fixes#22779.
This makes it illegal to have unconstrained lifetimes that appear in an associated type definition. Arguably, we should prohibit all unconstrained lifetimes -- but it would break various macros. It'd be good to evaluate how large a break change it would be. But this seems like the minimal change we need to do to establish soundness, so we should land it regardless. Another variant would be to prohibit all lifetimes that appear in any impl item, not just associated types. I don't think that's necessary for soundness -- associated types are different because they can be projected -- but it would feel a bit more consistent and "obviously" safe. I'll experiment with that in the meantime.
r? @aturon
Fixes#22077.
which get mentioned in an associated type are constrained. Arguably we
should just require that all regions are constrained, but that is more
of a breaking change.
typeck: Do high-level structural/signature checks before function body checks.
This avoids various ICEs, e.g. premature calls to cat_expr that yield the dreaded "cat_expr Errd" ICE.
However, it also means that some early error feedback is now not provided. This may be for the best, because the error feedback were were providing in some of those cases were false positives -- it was spurious feedback and a distraction from the real problem.
So it is not 100% clear whether we actually want to put this change in or not. I think its a net win, but others might disagree.
(Kudos to @arielb1 for suggesting this modification.)
Extend rustc::middle::dataflow to allow filtering kills from flow-exits.
Fix borrowck analysis so that it will not treat a break that pops through an assignment
```rust
x = { ... break; ... }
```
as a kill of the "moved-out" bit for `x`.
Fix#24267.
[breaking-change], but really, its only breaking code that was already buggy.
* In `noop_fold_expr`, call `new_span` in these cases:
- `ExprMethodCall`'s identifier
- `ExprField`'s identifier
- `ExprTupField`'s integer
Calling `new_span` for `ExprMethodCall`'s identifier is necessary to print
an acceptable diagnostic for `write!(&2, "")`. We see this error:
```
<std macros>:2:20: 2:66 error: type `&mut _` does not implement any method in scope named `write_fmt`
<std macros>:2 ( & mut * $ dst ) . write_fmt ( format_args ! ( $ ( $ arg ) * ) ) )
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
```
With this change, we also see a macro expansion backtrace leading to
the `write!(&2, "")` call site.
* After fully expanding a macro, we replace the expansion expression's
span with the original span. Call `fld.new_span` to add a backtrace to
this span. (Note that I'm call `new_span` after `bt.pop()`, so the macro
just expanded isn't on the backtrace.)
The motivating example for this change is `println!("{}")`. The format
string literal is `concat!($fmt, "arg")` and is inside the libstd macro.
We need to see the backtrace to find the `println!` call site.
* Add a backtrace to the `format_args!` format expression span.
r? alexcrichton
Addresses #23459
We provide tools to tell what exact symbols to emit for any fn or static, but
don’t quite check if that won’t cause any issues later on. Some of the issues
include LLVM mangling our names again and our names pointing to wrong locations,
us generating dumb foreign call wrappers, linker errors, extern functions
resolving to different symbols altogether (`extern {fn fail();} fail();` in some
cases calling `fail1()`), etc.
Before the commit we had a function called `note_unique_llvm_symbol`, so it is
clear somebody was aware of the issue at some point, but the function was barely
used, mostly in irrelevant locations.
Along with working on it I took liberty to start refactoring trans/base into
a few smaller modules. The refactoring is incomplete and I hope I will find some
motivation to carry on with it.
This is possibly a [breaking-change] because it makes dumbly written code
properly invalid.
This fixes all those issues about incorrect use of #[no_mangle] being not reported/misreported/ICEd by the compiler.
NB. This PR does not attempt to tackle the parallel codegen issue that was mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/22811, but I believe it should be very straightforward in a follow up PR by modifying `trans::declare::get_defined_value` to look at all the contexts.
cc @alexcrichton @huonw @nrc because you commented on the original RFC issue.
EDIT: wow, this became much bigger than I initially intended.
Don't use skolemized parameters but rather fresh variables in coherence. Skolemized parameters wind up preventing unification. Surprised we had no test for this! Fixes#24241.
r? @pnkfelix
Example showing sample inputs, old message, new message:
https://gist.github.com/nikomatsakis/11126784ac678b7eb6ba
Also adds infrastructure for reporting suggestions \"in situ\" and does some (minor) cleanups to `CodeMap`.
r? @brson
Statement macros are now treated somewhat like item macros, in that a statement macro can now expand into a series of statements, rather than just a single statement.
This allows statement macros to be nested inside other kinds of macros and expand properly, where previously the expansion would only work when no nesting was present.
See:
- `src/test/run-pass/macro-stmt_macro_in_expr_macro.rs`
- `src/test/run-pass/macro-nested_stmt_macro.rs`
This changes the interface of the MacResult trait. make_stmt has become make_stmts and now returns a vector, rather than a single item. Plugin writers who were implementing MacResult will have breakage, as well as anyone using MacEager::stmt.
See:
- `src/libsyntax/ext/base.rs`
This also causes a minor difference in behavior to the diagnostics produced by certain malformed macros.
See:
- `src/test/compile-fail/macro-incomplete-parse.rs`
This is a really minor issue. I noticed some tests no longer need the ignore
tidy comment directive.
A quick grep turned up the following files:
src/test/compile-fail/bad-mid-path-type-params.rs
src/test/compile-fail/bad-sized.rs
src/test/compile-fail/coherence-default-trait-impl.rs
src/test/compile-fail/coherence-orphan.rs
src/test/compile-fail/issue-8767.rs
src/test/compile-fail/lint-stability.rs
src/test/compile-fail/lint-uppercase-variables.rs
src/test/compile-fail/typeck-default-trait-impl-outside-crate.rs
src/test/compile-fail/use-after-move-implicity-coerced-object.rs
src/test/debuginfo/gdb-pretty-std.rs
It didn't seem like it was worth opening an issue for this, but if that is not
the case (i.e. it is required), I'll open one up. Thanks!
