Improve suggestion for "missing function argument" on multiline call
`rustc` has a very neat suggestion when the argument count does not match, with a nice placeholder that shows where an argument may be missing. Unfortunately the suggestion is always single-line, even when the function call spans across multiple lines. With this PR, `rustc` tries to guess if the function call is multiline or not, and emits a multiline suggestion when required.
r? `@jdonszelmann`
Fix macro infinite recursion test to not trigger warning about semicolon in expr
The test cases for rust-lang/rust#41731 are about infinite macro recursion that
incorporates `print!` and `println!`. However, they also included
trailing semicolons despite expanding to expressions; that isn't what
these particular test cases are designed to test.
Eliminate the trailing semicolons, to simplify future work on removing
this special case. Every *other* macro that expands to a semicolon in an
expression is a test case for that specifically.
Ignore coroutine witness type region args in auto trait confirmation
## The problem
Consider code like:
```
async fn process<'a>() {
Box::pin(process()).await;
}
fn require_send(_: impl Send) {}
fn main() {
require_send(process());
}
```
When proving that the coroutine `{coroutine@process}::<'?0>: Send`, we end up instantiating a nested goal `{witness@process}::<'?0>: Send` by synthesizing a witness type from the coroutine's args:
Proving a coroutine witness type implements an auto trait requires looking up the coroutine's witness types. The witness types are a binder that look like `for<'r> { Pin<Box<{coroutine@process}::<'r>>> }`. We instantiate this binder with placeholders and prove `Send` on the witness types. This ends up eventually needing to prove something like `{coroutine@process}::<'!1>: Send`. Repeat this process, and we end up in an overflow during fulfillment, since fulfillment does not use freshening.
This can be visualized with a trait stack that ends up looking like:
* `{coroutine@process}::<'?0>: Send`
* `{witness@process}::<'?0>: Send`
* `Pin<Box<{coroutine@process}::<'!1>>>: Send`
* `{coroutine@process}::<'!1>: Send`
* ...
* `{coroutine@process}::<'!2>: Send`
* `{witness@process}::<'!2>: Send`
* ...
* overflow!
The problem here specifically comes from the first step: synthesizing a witness type from the coroutine's args.
## Why wasn't this an issue before?
Specifically, before 63f6845e57, this wasn't an issue because we were instead extracting the witness from the coroutine type itself. It turns out that given some `{coroutine@process}::<'?0>`, the witness type was actually something like `{witness@process}::<'erased>`!
So why do we end up with a witness type with `'erased` in its args? This is due to the fact that opaque type inference erases all regions from the witness. This is actually explicitly part of opaque type inference -- changing this to actually visit the witness types actually replicates this overflow even with 63f6845e57 reverted:
ca77504943/compiler/rustc_borrowck/src/type_check/opaque_types.rs (L303-L313)
To better understand this difference and how it avoids a cycle, if you look at the trait stack before 63f6845e57, we end up with something like:
* `{coroutine@process}::<'?0>: Send`
* `{witness@process}::<'erased>: Send` **<-- THIS CHANGED**
* `Pin<Box<{coroutine@process}::<'!1>>>: Send`
* `{coroutine@process}::<'!1>: Send`
* ...
* `{coroutine@process}::<'erased>: Send` **<-- THIS CHANGED**
* `{witness@process}::<'erased>: Send` **<-- THIS CHANGED**
* coinductive cycle! 🎉
## So what's the fix?
This hack replicates the behavior in opaque type inference to erase regions from the witness type, but instead erasing the regions during auto trait confirmation. This is kinda a hack, but is sound. It does not need to be replicated in the new trait solver, of course.
---
I hope this explanation makes sense.
We could beta backport this instead of the revert https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145193, but then I'd like to un-revert that on master in this PR along with landing this this hack. Thoughts?
r? lcnr
Check coroutine upvars in dtorck constraint
Fixrust-lang/rust#144155.
This PR fixes an unsoundness where we were not considering coroutine upvars as drop-live if the coroutine interior types (witness types) had nothing which required drop.
In the case that the coroutine does not have any interior types that need to be dropped, then we don't need to treat all of the upvars as use-live; instead, this PR uses the same logic as closures, and descends into the upvar types to collect anything that must be drop-live. The rest of this PR is reworking the comment to explain the behavior here.
r? `@lcnr` or reassign 😸
---
Just some thoughts --- a proper fix for this whole situation would be to consider `TypingMode` in the `needs_drop` function, and just calling `coroutine_ty.needs_drop(tcx, typing_env)` in the dtorck constraint check.
During MIR building, we should probably use a typing mode that stalls the local coroutines and considers them to be unconditionally drop, or perhaps just stall *all* coroutines in analysis mode. Then in borrowck mode, we can re-check `needs_drop` but descend into witness types properly. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144158 implements this experimentally.
This is a pretty involved fix, and conflicts with some in-flight changes (rust-lang/rust#144157) that I have around removing coroutine witnesses altogether. I'm happy to add a FIXME to rework this whole approach, but I don't want to block this quick fix since it's obviously more correct than the status-quo.
Reject relaxed bounds inside associated type bounds (ATB)
**Reject** relaxed bounds — most notably `?Sized` — inside associated type bounds `TraitRef<AssocTy: …>`.
This was previously accepted without warning despite being incorrect: ATBs are *not* a place where we perform *sized elaboration*, meaning `TraitRef<AssocTy: …>` does *not* elaborate to `TraitRef<AssocTy: Sized + …>` if `…` doesn't contain `?Sized`. Therefore `?Sized` is meaningless. In no other (stable) place do we (intentionally) allow relaxed bounds where we don't also perform sized elab, this is highly inconsistent and confusing! Another point of comparison: For the desugared `$SelfTy: TraitRef, $SelfTy::AssocTy: …` we don't do sized elab either (and thus also don't allow relaxed bounds).
Moreover — as I've alluded to back in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135841#pullrequestreview-2619462717 — some later validation steps only happen during sized elaboration during HIR ty lowering[^1]. Namely, rejecting duplicates (e.g., `?Trait + ?Trait`) and ensuring that `Trait` in `?Trait` is equal to `Sized`[^2]. As you can probably guess, on stable/master we don't run these checks for ATBs (so we allow even more nonsensical bounds like `Iterator<Item: ?Copy>` despite T-types's ruling established in the FCP'ed rust-lang/rust#135841).
This PR rectifies all of this. I cratered this back in 2025-01-10 with (allegedly) no regressions found ([report](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135331#issuecomment-2585330783), [its analysis](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135331#issuecomment-2585356422)). [However a contributor manually found two occurrences](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/135229#issuecomment-2581832852) of `TraitRef<AssocTy: ?Sized>` in small hobby projects (presumably via GH code search). I immediately sent downstream PRs: https://github.com/Gui-Yom/turbo-metrics/pull/14, https://github.com/ireina7/summon/pull/1 (however, the owners have showed no reaction so far).
I'm leaning towards banning these forms **without a FCW** because a FCW isn't worth the maintenance cost[^3]. Note that associated type bounds were stabilized in 1.79.0 (released 2024-06-13 which is 13 months ago), so the proliferation of ATBs shouldn't be that high yet. If you think we should do another crater run since the last one was 6 months ago, I'm fine with that.
Fixesrust-lang/rust#135229.
[^1]: I consider this a flaw in the implementation and [I've already added a huge FIXME](82a02aefe0/compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/hir_ty_lowering/bounds.rs (L195-L207)).
[^2]: To be more precise, if the internal flag `-Zexperimental-default-bounds` is provided other "default traits" (needs internal feature `lang_items`) are permitted as well (cc closely related internal feature: `more_maybe_bounds`).
[^3]: Having to track this and adding an entire lint whose remnants would remain in the code base forever (we never *fully* remove lints).
Tweak spans providing type context on errors when involving macros
Do not point at macro invocation multiple times when we try to add span labels mentioning what type each expression has, which is unnecessary when the error is at a macro invocation.
Point at the `Fn()` or `FnMut()` bound that coerced a closure, which caused a move error
When encountering a move error involving a closure because the captured value isn't `Copy`, and the obligation comes from a bound on a type parameter that requires `Fn` or `FnMut`, we point at it and explain that an `FnOnce` wouldn't cause the move error.
```
error[E0507]: cannot move out of `foo`, a captured variable in an `Fn` closure
--> f111.rs:15:25
|
14 | fn do_stuff(foo: Option<Foo>) {
| --- ----------- move occurs because `foo` has type `Option<Foo>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
| |
| captured outer variable
15 | require_fn_trait(|| async {
| -- ^^^^^ `foo` is moved here
| |
| captured by this `Fn` closure
16 | if foo.map_or(false, |f| f.foo()) {
| --- variable moved due to use in coroutine
|
help: `Fn` and `FnMut` closures require captured values to be able to be consumed multiple times, but an `FnOnce` consume them only once
--> f111.rs:12:53
|
12 | fn require_fn_trait<F: Future<Output = ()>>(_: impl Fn() -> F) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
help: consider cloning the value if the performance cost is acceptable
|
16 | if foo.clone().map_or(false, |f| f.foo()) {
| ++++++++
```
Fixrust-lang/rust#68119, by pointing at `Fn` and `FnMut` bounds involved in move errors.
Detect struct construction with private field in field with default
When trying to construct a struct that has a public field of a private type, suggest using `..` if that field has a default value.
```
error[E0603]: struct `Priv1` is private
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor-2.rs:19:39
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), field1: m::Priv1 {} };
| ------ ^^^^^ private struct
| |
| while setting this field
|
note: the struct `Priv1` is defined here
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor-2.rs:14:4
|
LL | struct Priv1 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: the type `Priv1` of field `field1` is private, but you can construct the default value defined for it in `S` using `..` in the struct initializer expression
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), .. };
| ~~
```
Do not point at macro invocation which expands to an inference error. Avoid the following:
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> $DIR/does-not-have-iter-interpolated.rs:12:5
|
LL | quote!($($nonrep)*);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| expected `HasIterator`, found `ThereIsNoIteratorInRepetition`
| expected due to this
| here the type of `has_iter` is inferred to be `ThereIsNoIteratorInRepetition`
```
The test cases for issue 41731 are about infinite macro recursion that
incorporates `print!` and `println!`. However, they also included
trailing semicolons despite expanding to expressions; that isn't what
these particular test cases are designed to test.
Eliminate the trailing semicolons, to simplify future work on removing
this special case. Every *other* macro that expands to a semicolon in an
expression is a test case for that specifically.
Add regression test for `saturating_sub` bounds check issue
Add codegen test for issue where `valid_index.saturating_sub(X)` produced an extra bounds check.
This was fixed by the LLVM upgrade.
Closesrust-lang/rust#139759
Rehome 32 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/`
rust-lang/rust#143902 divided into smaller, easier to review chunks.
Part of rust-lang/rust#133895
Methodology:
1. Refer to the previously written `tests/ui/SUMMARY.md`
2. Find an appropriate category for the test, using the original issue thread and the test contents.
3. Add the issue URL at the bottom (not at the top, as that would mess up stderr line numbers)
4. Rename the tests to make their purpose clearer
Inspired by the methodology that `@Kivooeo` was using.
r? `@jieyouxu`
When encountering a move error involving a closure because the captured value isn't `Copy`, and the obligation comes from a bound on a type parameter that requires `Fn` or `FnMut`, we point at it and explain that an `FnOnce` wouldn't cause the move error.
```
error[E0507]: cannot move out of `foo`, a captured variable in an `Fn` closure
--> f111.rs:15:25
|
14 | fn do_stuff(foo: Option<Foo>) {
| --- ----------- move occurs because `foo` has type `Option<Foo>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
| |
| captured outer variable
15 | require_fn_trait(|| async {
| -- ^^^^^ `foo` is moved here
| |
| captured by this `Fn` closure
16 | if foo.map_or(false, |f| f.foo()) {
| --- variable moved due to use in coroutine
|
help: `Fn` and `FnMut` closures require captured values to be able to be consumed multiple times, but an `FnOnce` consume them only once
--> f111.rs:12:53
|
12 | fn require_fn_trait<F: Future<Output = ()>>(_: impl Fn() -> F) {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
help: consider cloning the value if the performance cost is acceptable
|
16 | if foo.clone().map_or(false, |f| f.foo()) {
| ++++++++
```
When trying to construct a struct that has a public field of a private type, suggest using `..` if that field has a default value.
```
error[E0603]: struct `Priv1` is private
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor.rs:25:39
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), field1: m::Priv1 {} };
| ------ ^^^^^ private struct
| |
| while setting this field
|
note: the struct `Priv1` is defined here
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor.rs:14:4
|
LL | struct Priv1 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: the field `field1` you're trying to set has a default value, you can use `..` to use it
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), .. };
| ~~
```
Start reporting future breakage for `ILL_FORMED_ATTRIBUTE_INPUT` in dependencies
This has been a warn lint since early 2019 and a deny-by-default lint since late 2019.
We're currently transitioning some of the cases where this lint is being produced to a hard error (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143607https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143808 and more)
So let's report this lint in all dependencies for the remaining attributes
r? `@traviscross`
`@rustbot` labels +I-lang-nominated +T-lang -T-compiler
cc `@jdonszelmann`
(Separate question: Why does the "Future incompatibility report" only trigger if `report_in_deps` is true, even if the future incompatibility happens in the same crate, is this correct?)
This also needs a crater run, but I don't have permissions to trigger this
`suggest_borrow_generic_arg`: use the correct generic args
The suggestion now gets calls' generic arguments from the callee's type to handle cases where the callee isn't an identifier expression. Fixesrust-lang/rust#145164.
[win][arm64ec] Partial fix for raw-dylib-link-ordinal on Arm64EC
These are the test fixes required to get `raw-dylib-link-ordinal` working on Arm64EC.
For the test to completely pass, we also need an updated `ar_archive_writer` with <https://github.com/rust-lang/ar_archive_writer/pull/24> merged in.
`tests/ui/issues/`: The Issues Strike Back [4/N]
Some `tests/ui/issues/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/issues/`. Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133895.
r? ````````@jieyouxu````````
Simplify polonius location-sensitive analysis
This PR reworks the location-sensitive analysis into what we think is a worthwhile subset of the datalog analysis. A sort of polonius alpha analysis that handles NLL problem case 3 and more, but is still using the faster "reachability as an approximation of liveness", as well as the same loans-in-scope computation as NLLs -- and thus doesn't handle full flow-sensitivity like the datalog implementation.
In the last few months, we've identified this subset as being actionable:
- we believe we can make a stabilizable version of this analysis
- it is an improvement over the status quo
- it can also be modeled in a-mir-formality, or some other formalism, for assurances about soundness, and I believe ````````@nikomatsakis```````` is interested in looking into this during H2.
- and we've identified the areas of work we wish to explore later to gradually expand the supported cases: the differences between reachability and liveness, support of kills, and considerations of time-traveling, for example.
The approach in this PR is to try less to have the graph only represent live paths, by checking whether we reach a live region during traversal and recording the loan as live there, instead of equating traversal with liveness like today because it has subtleties with the typeck edges in statements (that could forward loans to the successor point without ensuring their liveness). We can then also simplify these typeck stmt edges. And we also can simplify traversal by removing looking at kills, because that's enough to handle a bunch of NLL problem 3 cases -- and we can gradually support them more and more in traversal in the future, to reduce the approximation of liveness.
There's still some in-progress pieces of work w/r/t opaque types that I'm expecting [lcnr's opaque types rework](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139587), and [amanda's SCCs rework](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130227) to handle. That didn't seem to show up in tests until I rebased today (and shows lack of test coverage once again) when https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/142255 introduced a couple of test failures with the new captures rules from edition 2024. It's not unexpected since we know more work is needed with member constraints (and we're not even using SCCs in this prototype yet)
I'll look into these anyways, both for future work, and checking how these other 2 PRs would change things.
---
I'm not sure the following means a lot until we have some formalism in-place, but:
- I've changed the polonius compare-mode to use this analysis: the tests pass with it, except 2 cases with minor diagnostics differences, and the 2 edition 2024 opaque types one I mentioned above and need to investigate
- things that are expected to work still do work: it bootstraps, can run our rustc-perf benchmarks (and the results are not even that bad), and a crater run didn't find any regressions (forgetting that crater currently fails to test around a quarter of all crates 👼)
- I've added tests with improvements, like the NLL problem case 3 and others, as well as some that behave the same as NLLs today and are thus worse than the datalog implementation
r? ````````@jackh726````````
(no rush I know you're deep in phd work and "implmentating" the new trait solver for r-a :p <3)
This also fixesrust-lang/rust#135646, a diagnostics ICE from the previous implementation.
defer opaque type errors, generally greatly reduce tainting
fixes the test for rust-lang/rust#135528, does not actually fix that issue properly.
This is useful as it causes the migration to rust-lang/rust#139587 to be a lot easier.
Explicitly disable vector feature on s390x baseline of bad-reg test
If the baseline s390x cpu is changed to a newer variant, such as z13, the vector feature may be enabled by default. When rust is packaged on fedora 38 and newer, it is set to z13.
Explicitly disable vector support on the baseline test for consistent results across s390x cpus.
Remove unneeded `drop_in_place` calls
Might as well pull this out from rust-lang/rust#144561 because this is still used in things like `Vec::truncate` where it'd be nice to allow it be removed if inlined enough to see that the type is `Copy`.
So long as perf says it's ok, at least 🤞
rustdoc search: prefer stable items in search results
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138067
this does add a new field to the search index, but since we're only listing unstable items instead of adding a boolean flag to every item, it should only increase the search index size of sysroot crates, since those are the only ones using the `staged_api` feature, at least as far as the rust project is concerned.
add a scope for `if let` guard temporaries and bindings
This fixes my concern with `if let` guard drop order, namely that the guard's bindings and temporaries were being dropped after their arm's pattern's bindings, instead of before (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/141295#issuecomment-2968975596). The guard's bindings and temporaries now live in a new scope, which extends until (but not past) the end of the arm, guaranteeing they're dropped before the arm's pattern's bindings.
This only introduces a new scope for match arms with guards. Perf results (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143376#issuecomment-3034922617) seemed to indicate there wasn't a significant hit to introduce a new scope on all match arms, but guard patterns (rust-lang/rust#129967) will likely benefit from only adding new scopes when necessary (with some patterns requiring multiple nested scopes).
Tracking issue for `if_let_guard`: rust-lang/rust#51114
Tests are adapted from examples by `@traviscross,` `@est31,` and myself on rust-lang/rust#141295.
Account for bare tuples and `Pin` methods in field searching logic
When looking for the field names and types of a given type, account for tuples. This allows suggestions for incorrectly nested field accesses and field name typos to trigger as intended. Previously these suggestions only worked on `ty::Adt`, including tuple structs which are no different to tuples, so they should behave the same in suggestions.
When suggesting field access which would encounter a method not found, do not suggest pinning when those methods are on `impl Pin` itself.
```
error[E0599]: no method named `get_ref` found for tuple `(BufReader<File>,)` in the current scope
--> $DIR/missing-field-access.rs:11:15
|
LL | let x = f.get_ref();
| ^^^^^^^ method not found in `(BufReader<File>,)`
|
help: one of the expressions' fields has a method of the same name
|
LL | let x = f.0.get_ref();
| ++
```
instead of
```
error[E0599]: no method named `get_ref` found for tuple `(BufReader<File>,)` in the current scope
--> $DIR/missing-field-access.rs:11:15
|
LL | let x = f.get_ref();
| ^^^^^^^ method not found in `(BufReader<File>,)`
|
help: consider pinning the expression
|
LL ~ let mut pinned = std::pin::pin!(f);
LL ~ let x = pinned.as_ref().get_ref();
|
```
Fixrust-lang/rust#144602.
Implement declarative (`macro_rules!`) attribute macros (RFC 3697)
This implements [RFC 3697](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/143547), "Declarative (`macro_rules!`) attribute macros".
I would suggest reading this commit-by-commit. This first introduces the
feature gate, then adds parsing for attribute rules (doing nothing with them),
then adds the ability to look up and apply `macro_rules!` attributes by path,
then adds support for local attributes, then adds a test, and finally makes
various improvements to errors.
