Previously, we included a redundant prefix on the panic message and a postfix of the location of the panic. The prefix didn't carry any additional information beyond "something failed", and the location of the panic is redundant with the diagnostic's span, which gets printed out even if its code is not shown.
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> $DIR/assert-type-intrinsics.rs:11:9
|
LL | MaybeUninit::<!>::uninit().assume_init();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: aborted execution: attempted to instantiate uninhabited type `!`
```
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of `Fail::<i32>::C` failed
--> $DIR/collect-in-dead-closure.rs:9:19
|
LL | const C: () = panic!();
| ^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: explicit panic
|
= note: this error originates in the macro
`$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro
`panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> $DIR/uninhabited.rs:41:9
|
LL | assert!(false);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: assertion failed: false
|
= note: this error originates in the macro `assert` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
---
When the primary span for a const error is the same as the first frame in the const error report, skip it.
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:3:24
|
LL | const _CONST: &[u8] = &f(&[], |_| {});
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: explicit panic
|
note: inside `f::<{closure@$DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:3:31: 3:34}>`
--> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:10:5
|
LL | panic!()
| ^^^^^^^^ the failure occurred here
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
instead of
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:10:5
|
LL | panic!()
| ^^^^^^^^ explicit panic
|
note: inside `f::<{closure@$DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:3:31: 3:34}>`
--> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:10:5
|
LL | panic!()
| ^^^^^^^^
note: inside `_CONST`
--> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:3:24
|
LL | const _CONST: &[u8] = &f(&[], |_| {});
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
---
Revert order of constant evaluation errors
Point at the code the user wrote first and std functions last.
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> $DIR/const-errs-dont-conflict-103369.rs:5:25
|
LL | impl ConstGenericTrait<{my_fn(1)}> for () {}
| ^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: Some error occurred
|
note: called from `my_fn`
--> $DIR/const-errs-dont-conflict-103369.rs:10:5
|
LL | panic!("Some error occurred");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
instead of
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> $DIR/const-errs-dont-conflict-103369.rs:10:5
|
LL | panic!("Some error occurred");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Some error occurred
|
note: called from `<() as ConstGenericTrait<{my_fn(1)}>>::{constant#0}`
--> $DIR/const-errs-dont-conflict-103369.rs:5:25
|
LL | impl ConstGenericTrait<{my_fn(1)}> for () {}
| ^^^^^^^^
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
```
error[E0610]: `{integer}` is a primitive type and therefore doesn't have fields
--> $DIR/attempted-access-non-fatal.rs:7:15
|
LL | let _ = 2.l;
| ^
|
help: if intended to be a floating point literal, consider adding a `0` after the period and a `f64` suffix
|
LL - let _ = 2.l;
LL + let _ = 2.0f64;
|
```
fix tail call checks wrt `#[track_caller]`
Only check the caller + disallow caller having the attribute.
fixes#134336
r? `@compiler-errors`
<sub>apparently there were no tests for `#[track_caller]` before... ooops</sub>
implement checks for tail calls
Quoting the [RFC draft](https://github.com/phi-go/rfcs/blob/guaranteed-tco/text/0000-explicit-tail-calls.md):
> The argument to become is a function (or method) call, that exactly matches the function signature and calling convention of the callee. The intent is to ensure a matching ABI. Note that lifetimes may differ as long as they pass borrow checking, see [below](https://github.com/phi-go/rfcs/blob/guaranteed-tco/text/0000-explicit-tail-calls.md#return-type-coercion) for specifics on the return type.
> Tail calling closures and tail calling from closures is not allowed. This is due to the high implementation effort, see below, this restriction can be lifted by a future RFC.
> Invocations of operators were considered as valid targets but were rejected on grounds of being too error-prone. In any case, these can still be called as methods.
> Tail calling [variadic functions](https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/unstable-book/language-features/c-variadic.html) and tail calling from variadic functions is not allowed. As support for variadic function is stabilized on a per target level, support for tail-calls regarding variadic functions would need to follow a similar approach. To avoid this complexity and to minimize implementation effort for backends, this interaction is currently not allowed but support can be added with a future RFC.
-----
The checks are implemented as a query, similarly to `check_unsafety`.
The code is cherry-picked straight out of #112657 which was written more than a year ago, so I expect we might need to change some things ^^"
this implements checks necessary to guarantee that we can actually
perform a tail call. while extremely restrictive, this is what is
documented in the RFC, and all these checks are needed for one reason or
another.
This improves parallel rustc parallelism by avoiding the bottleneck after each individual `par_body_owners` (because it needs to wait for queries to finish, so if there is one long running one, a lot of cores will be idle while waiting for the single query).
