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.
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.
Use the informative error as the main const eval error message
r? `@RalfJung`
I only did the minimal changes necessary to the const eval error machinery. I'd prefer not to mix test changes with refactorings 😆
`UsePath` contains a `SmallVec<[Res; 3]>`. This holds up to three `Res`
results, one per namespace (type, value, or macro). `lower_import_res`
takes a `PerNS<Option<Res<NodeId>>>` result and lowers it into the
`SmallVec`. This is pretty weird. The input `PerNS` makes it clear which
`Res` belongs to which namespace, but the `SmallVec` throws that
information away.
And code that operates on the `SmallVec` tends to use iteration (or even
just grabbing the first entry!) without knowing which namespace the
`Res` belongs to. Even weirder! Also, `SmallVec` is an overly flexible
type to use here, because it can contain any number of elements (even
though it's optimized for 3 in this case).
This commit changes `UsePath` so it also contains a
`PerNS<Option<Res<HirId>>>`. This type preserves more information and is
more self-documenting. The commit also changes a lot of the use sites to
access the result for a particular namespace. E.g. if you're looking up
a trait, it will be in the `Res` for the type namespace if it's present;
it's silly to look in the `Res` for the value namespace or macro
namespace. Overall I find the new code much easier to understand.
However, some use sites still iterate. These now use `present_items`
because that filters out the `None` results.
Also, `redundant_pub_crate.rs` gets a bigger change. A
`UseKind:ListStem` item gets no `Res` results, which means the old `all`
call in `is_not_macro_export` would succeed (because `all` succeeds on
an empty iterator) and the `ListStem` would be ignored. This is what we
want, but was more by luck than design. The new code detects `ListStem`
explicitly. The commit generalizes the name of that function
accordingly.
Finally, the commit also removes the `use_path` arena, because
`PerNS<Option<Res>>` impls `Copy` (unlike `SmallVec`) and it can be
allocated in the arena shared by all `Copy` types.
Specifically `TyAlias`, `Enum`, `Struct`, `Union`. So the fields match
the textual order in the source code.
The interesting part of the change is in
`compiler/rustc_hir/src/hir.rs`. The rest is extremely mechanical
refactoring.
Reorder `ast::ItemKind::{Struct,Enum,Union}` fields.
So they match the order of the parts in the source code, e.g.:
```
struct Foo<T, U> { t: T, u: U }
<-><----> <------------>
/ | \
ident generics variant_data
```
r? `@fee1-dead`
So they match the order of the parts in the source code, e.g.:
```
struct Foo<T, U> { t: T, u: U }
<-><----> <------------>
/ | \
ident generics variant_data
```
Properly analyze captures from unsafe binders
We need to represent the unsafe binder unwrap as an adjustment in HIR. Pretty straightforward b/c we already represent it as a projection elem in MIR.
Fixes#141418Fixes#141417
r? oli-obk
make `rustc_attr_parsing` less dominant in the rustc crate graph
It has/had a glob re-export of `rustc_attr_data_structures`, which is a crate much lower in the graph, and a lot of crates were using it *just* (or *mostly*) for that re-export, while they can rely on `rustc_attr_data_structures` directly.
Previous graph:
Graph with this PR:
The first commit keeps the re-export, and just changes the dependency if possible. The second commit is the "breaking change" which removes the re-export, and "explicitly" adds the `rustc_attr_data_structures` dependency where needed. It also switches over some src/tools/*.
The second commit is actually a lot more involved than I expected. Please let me know if it's a better idea to back it out and just keep the first commit.
Remove `weak` alias terminology
I find the "weak" alias terminology to be quite confusing. It implies the existence of "strong" aliases (which do not exist) and I'm not really sure what about weak aliases is "weak". I much prefer "free alias" as the term. I think it's much more obvious what it means as "free function" is a well defined term that already exists in rust.
It's also a little confusing given "weak alias" is already a term in linker/codegen spaces which are part of the compiler too. Though I'm not particularly worried about that as it's usually very obvious if you're talking about the type system or not lol. I'm also currently trying to write documentation about aliases and it's somewhat awkward/confusing to be talking about *weak* aliases, when I'm not really sure what the basis for that as the term actually *is*.
I would also be happy to just find out there's a nice meaning behind calling them "weak" aliases :-)
r? `@oli-obk`
maybe we want a types MCP to decide on a specific naming here? or maybe we think its just too late to go back on this naming decision ^^'
