in which we plug the crack where `?`-desugaring leaked into errors
Most of the time, it's not a problem that the types of the arm bodies in
a desugared-from-`?` match are different (that is, specifically: in `x?`
where x is a `Result<A, B>`, the `Ok` arm body is an `A`, whereas the
`Err` arm diverges to return a `Result<A, B>`), because they're being
assigned to different places. But in tail position, the types do need to
match, and our error message was explicitly referring to "match arms",
which is confusing when there's no `match` in the sweetly sugared
source.
It is not without some misgivings that we pollute the clarity-of-purpose
of `note_error_origin` with the suggestion to wrap with `Ok` (the other
branches are pointing out the odd-arm-out in the HIR that is the origin
of the error; the new branch that issues the `Ok` suggestion is serving
a different purpose), but it's the natural place to do it given that
we're already matching on `ObligationCauseCode::MatchExpressionArm {
arm_span, source }` there.
Resolves#51632.
[NLL] Fix various unused mut errors
Closes#51801Closes#50897Closes#51830Closes#51904
cc #51918 - keeping this one open in case there are any more issues
This PR contains multiple changes. List of changes with examples of what they fix:
* Change mir generation so that the parameter variable doesn't get a name when a `ref` pattern is used as an argument
```rust
fn f(ref y: i32) {} // doesn't trigger lint
```
* Change mir generation so that by-move closure captures don't get first moved into a temporary.
```rust
let mut x = 0; // doesn't trigger lint
move || {
x = 1;
};
```
* Treat generator upvars the same as closure upvars
```rust
let mut x = 0; // This mut is now necessary and is not linted against.
move || {
x = 1;
yield;
};
```
r? @nikomatsakis
Move self trait predicate to items
This is a "reimagination" of @tmandry's PR #50183. The main effect is described in this comment from one of the commits:
---
Before we had the following results for `predicates_of`:
```rust
trait Foo { // predicates_of: Self: Foo
fn bar(); // predicates_of: Self: Foo (inherited from trait)
}
```
Now we have removed the `Self: Foo` from the trait. However, we still
add it to the trait ITEM. This is because when people do things like
`<T as Foo>::bar()`, they still need to prove that `T: Foo`, and
having it in the `predicates_of` seems to be the cleanest way to
ensure that happens right now (otherwise, we'd need special case code
in various places):
```rust
trait Foo { // predicates_of: []
fn bar(); // predicates_of: Self: Foo
}
```
However, we sometimes want to get the list of *just* the predicates
truly defined on a trait item (e.g., for chalk, but also for a few
other bits of code). For that, we define `predicates_defined_on`,
which does not contain the `Self: Foo` predicate yet, and we plumb
that through metadata and so forth.
---
I'm assigning @eddyb as the main reviewer, but I thought I might delegate to scalexm for this one in any case. I also want to post an alternative that I'll leave in the comments; it occurred to me as I was writing. =)
r? @eddyb
cc @scalexm @tmandry @leodasvacas
[NLL] Use better span for initializing a variable twice
Closes#51217
When assigning to a (projection from a) local immutable local which starts initialised (everything except `let PATTERN;`):
* Point to the declaration of that local
* Make the error message refer to the local, rather than the projection.
r? @nikomatsakis
Rollup of 13 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #51548 (Initialize LLVM's AMDGPU target machine, if available.)
- #51809 (Add read_exact_at and write_all_at methods to FileExt on unix)
- #51914 (add outlives annotations to `BTreeMap`)
- #51958 (Show known meta items in unknown meta items error)
- #51973 (Make Stdio handle UnwindSafe)
- #51977 (bootstrap: tests should use rustc from config.toml)
- #51978 (Do not suggest changes to str literal if it isn't one)
- #51979 (Get rid of `TyImplTraitExistential`)
- #51980 (Emit column info in debuginfo for non msvc like targets)
- #51982 (incr.comp.: Take names of children into account when computing the ICH of a module's HIR.)
- #51997 (add entry for cargo-metadata feature to RELEASES)
- #52004 (toolstate: Fixed detection of changed submodule, and other fixes.)
- #52006 ( Change --keep-stage to apply more often)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
Show known meta items in unknown meta items error
This PR adds a label to E0541. It also factors built-in attribute parsing into a submodule of `attr` for ease of future refactoring.
Fixes#51469.
This new query returns only the predicates *directly defined* on an
item (in contrast to the more common `predicates_of`, which returns
the predicates that must be proven to reference an item). These two
sets are almost always identical except for traits, where
`predicates_of` includes an artificial `Self: Trait<...>` predicate
(basically saying that you cannot use a trait item without proving
that the trait is implemented for the type parameters).
This new query is only used in chalk lowering, where this artificial
`Self: Trait` predicate is problematic. We encode it in metadata but
only where needed since it is kind of repetitive with existing
information.
Co-authored-by: Tyler Mandry <tmandry@gmail.com>
If we have
```rust
struct Foo<T: Copy = String> { .. }
```
the old code would have proven that `String: Copy` was WF -- this,
incidentally, also proved that `String: Copy`. The new code just
proves `String: Copy` directly.
Co-authored-by: Tyler Mandry <tmandry@gmail.com>
add modifier keyword spans to hir::Visibility; improve unreachable-pub, private-no-mangle lint suggestions
#50455 pointed out that the unreachable-pub suggestion for brace-grouped `use`s was bogus; #50476 partially ameliorated this by marking the suggestion as `Applicability::MaybeIncorrect`, but this is the actual fix.
Meanwhile, another application of having spans available in `hir::Visibility` is found in the private-no-mangle lints, where we can now issue a suggestion to use `pub` if the item has a more restricted visibility marker (this seems much less likely to come up in practice than not having any visibility keyword at all, but thoroughness is a virtue). While we're there, we can also add a helpful note if the item does have a `pub` (but triggered the lint presumably because enclosing modules were private).
r? @nrc
cc @Manishearth
Loosened rules involving statics mentioning other statics
Before this PR, trying to mention a static in any way other than taking a reference to it caused a compile-time error. So, while
```rust
static A: u32 = 42;
static B: &u32 = &A;
```
compiles successfully,
```rust
static A: u32 = 42;
static B: u32 = A; // error
```
and
```rust
static A: u32 = 42;
static B: u32 = *&A; // error
```
are not possible to express in Rust. On the other hand, introducing an intermediate `const fn` can presently allow one to do just that:
```rust
static A: u32 = 42;
static B: u32 = foo(&A); // success!
const fn foo(a: &u32) -> u32 {
*a
}
```
Preventing `const fn` from allowing to work around the ban on reading from statics would cripple `const fn` almost into uselessness.
Additionally, the limitation for reading from statics comes from the old const evaluator(s) and is not shared by `miri`.
This PR loosens the rules around use of statics to allow statics to evaluate other statics by value, allowing all of the above examples to compile and run successfully.
Reads from extern (foreign) statics are however still disallowed by miri, because there is no compile-time value to be read.
```rust
extern static A: u32;
static B: u32 = A; // error
```
This opens up a new avenue of potential issues, as a static can now not just refer to other statics or read from other statics, but even contain references that point into itself.
While it might seem like this could cause subtle bugs like allowing a static to be initialized by its own value, this is inherently impossible in miri.
Reading from a static causes the `const_eval` query for that static to be invoked. Calling the `const_eval` query for a static while already inside the `const_eval` query of said static will cause cycle errors.
It is not possible to accidentally create a bug in miri that would enable initializing a static with itself, because the memory of the static *does not exist* while being initialized.
The memory is not uninitialized, it is not there. Thus any change that would accidentally allow reading from a not yet initialized static would cause ICEs.
Tests have been modified according to the new rules, and new tests have been added for writing to `static mut`s within definitions of statics (which needs to fail), and incremental compilation with complex/interlinking static definitions.
Note that incremental compilation did not need to be adjusted, because all of this was already possible before with workarounds (like intermediate `const fn`s) and the encoding/decoding already supports all the possible cases.
r? @eddyb
NLL: bad error message when converting anonymous lifetime to `'static`
Contributes to #46983. This PR doesn't introduce fantastic errors, but it should hopefully lay some groundwork for diagnostic improvements.
r? @nikomatsakis
Suggest correct comparison against negative literal
When parsing as emplacement syntax (`x<-1`), suggest the correct syntax
for comparison against a negative value (`x< -1`).
Fix#45651.
April 2016's Issue #33174 called out the E0446 diagnostics as
confusing. While adding the name of the restricted type to the message
(548e681f) clarified matters somewhat, Esteban Küber pointed out that we
could stand to place a secondary span on the restricted type.
Here, we differentiate between crate-visible, truly private, and
otherwise restricted types, and place a secondary span specifically on
the visibility modifier of the restricted type's declaration (which we
can do now that HIR visibilities have spans!).
At long last, this resolves#33174.
If the item is `pub`, one imagines users being confused as to why it's
not reachable/exported; a code suggestion is beyond our local knowledge
here, but we can at least offer a prose hint. (Thanks to Vadim
Petrochenkov for shooting down the present author's original bad idea
for the note text.)
While we're here, use proper HELP expectations instead of ad hoc
comments to communicate (and now, enforce) the expected suggestions in
test/ui/lint/suggestions.rs.
This is probably quite a lot less likely to come up in practice than the
"inherited" (no visibility keyword) case, but now that we have
visibility spans in the HIR, we can do this, and it presumably doesn't
hurt to be exhaustive. (Who can say but that the attention to detail
just might knock someone's socks off, someday, somewhere?)
This is inspired by #47383.
Most of the time, it's not a problem that the types of the arm bodies in
a desugared-from-`?` match are different (that is, specifically: in `x?`
where x is a `Result<A, B>`, the `Ok` arm body is an `A`, whereas the
`Err` arm diverges to return a `Result<A, B>`), because they're being
assigned to different places. But in tail position, the types do need to
match, and our error message was explicitly referring to "match arms",
which is confusing when there's no `match` in the sweetly sugared
source.
It is not without some misgivings that we pollute the clarity-of-purpose
of `note_error_origin` with the suggestion to wrap with `Ok` (the other
branches are pointing out the odd-arm-out in the HIR that is the origin
of the error; the new branch that issues the `Ok` suggestion is serving
a different purpose), but it's the natural place to do it given that
we're already matching on `ObligationCauseCode::MatchExpressionArm {
arm_span, source }` there.
Resolves#51632.
[NLL] Better move errors
Make a number of changes to improve the quality of NLL cannot move errors.
* Group errors that occur in the same `match` with the same cause.
* Suggest `ref`, `&` or removing `*` to avoid the move.
* Show the place being matched on.
Differences from AST borrowck:
* `&` is suggested over `ref` when matching on a place that can't be moved from.
* Removing `*` is suggested instead of adding `&` when applicable.
* Sub-pattern spans aren't used, this would probably need Spans on Places.
Closes#45699Closes#46627Closes#51187Closes#51189
r? @pnkfelix
