This is just one part of the MCP, but it's the one that IMHO removes the most noise from the standard library code.
Seems net simpler this way, since MIR already supported heterogeneous shifts anyway, and thus it's not more work for backends than before.
Match ergonomics 2024: implement mutable by-reference bindings
Implements the mutable by-reference bindings portion of match ergonomics 2024 (#123076), with the `mut ref`/`mut ref mut` syntax, under feature gate `mut_ref`.
r? `@Nadrieril`
`@rustbot` label A-patterns A-edition-2024
Suggest associated type bounds on problematic associated equality bounds
Fixes#105056. TL;DR: Suggest `Trait<Ty: Bound>` on `Trait<Ty = Bound>` in Rust >=2021.
~~Blocked on #122055 (stabilization of `associated_type_bounds`), I'd say.~~ (merged)
Avoid some unnecessary query invocations.
Specifically this inlines `const_eval_poly` and avoids computing the generic params, the param env, normalizing the param env and erasing lifetimes on everything.
should fix the perf regression from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121087
Delegation: fix ICE on `bound_vars` divergence
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/122550.
Bug was caused by divergence between lowered type and corresponding `bound_vars` in `late_bound_vars_map`. In this patch `bound_vars` calculation for delegation item is moved from `lower_fn_ty` to `resolve_bound_vars` query.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Mention Register Size in `#[warn(asm_sub_register)]`
Fixes#121593
Displays the register size information obtained from `suggest_modifier()` and `default_modifier()`.
refactor check_{lang,library}_ub: use a single intrinsic
This enacts the plan I laid out [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282#issuecomment-1996917998): use a single intrinsic, called `ub_checks` (in aniticpation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/725), that just exposes the value of `debug_assertions` (consistently implemented in both codegen and the interpreter). Put the language vs library UB logic into the library.
This makes it easier to do something like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122282 in the future: that just slightly alters the semantics of `ub_checks` (making it more approximating when crates built with different flags are mixed), but it no longer affects whether these checks can happen in Miri or compile-time.
The first commit just moves things around; I don't think these macros and functions belong into `intrinsics.rs` as they are not intrinsics.
r? `@saethlin`
Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #120577 (Stabilize slice_split_at_unchecked)
- #122698 (Cancel `cargo update` job if there's no updates)
- #122780 (Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`)
- #122915 (Delay a bug if no RPITITs were found)
- #122916 (docs(sync): normalize dot in fn summaries)
- #122921 (Enable more mir-opt tests in debug builds)
- #122922 (-Zprint-type-sizes: print the types of awaitees and unnamed coroutine locals.)
- #122927 (Change an ICE regression test to use the original reproducer)
- #122930 (add panic location to 'panicked while processing panic')
- #122931 (Fix some typos in the pin.rs)
- #122933 (tag_for_variant follow-ups)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`
Follow-up of #122776.
As discussed on [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).
I made this change into a separate PR because I'm less sure about this change as is. For example, we have `visit_local` and `LocalSource` items. Is it fine to keep these two as is (I supposed it is but I prefer to ask) or not? Having `Node::Local(LetStmt)` makes things more explicit but is it going too far?
r? ```@oli-obk```
Let codegen decide when to `mem::swap` with immediates
Making `libcore` decide this is silly; the backend has so much better information about when it's a good idea.
Thus this PR introduces a new `typed_swap` intrinsic with a fallback body, and replaces that fallback implementation when swapping immediates or scalar pairs.
r? oli-obk
Replaces #111744, and means we'll never need more libs PRs like #111803 or #107140
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #114009 (compiler: allow transmute of ZST arrays with generics)
- #122195 (Note that the caller chooses a type for type param)
- #122651 (Suggest `_` for missing generic arguments in turbofish)
- #122784 (Add `tag_for_variant` query)
- #122839 (Split out `PredicatePolarity` from `ImplPolarity`)
- #122873 (Merge my contributor emails into one using mailmap)
- #122885 (Adjust better spastorino membership to triagebot's adhoc_groups)
- #122888 (add a couple more tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Split out `PredicatePolarity` from `ImplPolarity`
Because having to deal with a third `Reservation` level in all the trait solver code is kind of weird.
r? `@lcnr` or `@oli-obk`
Suggest `_` for missing generic arguments in turbofish
The compiler may suggest unusable generic type names for missing generic arguments in an expression context:
```rust
fn main() {
(0..1).collect::<Vec>()
}
```
> help: add missing generic argument
>
> (0..1).collect::<Vec<T>>()
but `T` is not a valid name in this context, and this suggestion won't compile.
I've changed it to use `_` inside method calls (turbofish), so it will suggest `(0..1).collect::<Vec<_>>()` which _may_ compile.
It's possible that the suggested `_` will be ambiguous, but there is very extensive E0283 that will help resolve that, which is more helpful than a basic "cannot find type `T` in this scope" users would get otherwise.
Out of caution to limit scope of the change I've limited it to just turbofish, but I suspect `_` could be the better choice in more cases. Perhaps in all expressions?
Gracefully handle `AnonConst` in `diagnostic_hir_wf_check()`
Instead of running the WF check on the `AnonConst` itself we run it on the `ty` of the generic param of which the `AnonConst` is the default value.
Fixes#122199
This makes it easier to read the trait definition for newcomers:
Sorted from least “complex” to most “complex” followed by trivial “plumbing”
and grouped by area.
* Move `allow_infer` above all `*_infer` methods
* It's the least complex method of those
* Allows the `*_infer` to be placed right next to each other
* Move `probe_ty_param_bounds` further down right next to `lower_assoc_ty` and `probe_adt`
* It's more complex than the `infer` methods, it should come “later”
* Now all required lowering functions are grouped together
* Move the “plumbing” function `set_tainted_by_errors` further down
below any actual lowering methods.
* Provided method should come last
Most of the tracing calls didn't fully leverage the power of `tracing`.
For example, several of them used to hard-code method names / tracing spans
as well as variable names. Use `#[instrument]` and `?var` / `%var` (etc.) instead.
In my opinion, this is the proper way to migrate them from the old
AstConv nomenclature to the new HIR ty lowering one.
Several (doc) comments were super outdated or didn't provide enough context.
Some doc comments shoved everything in a single paragraph without respecting
the fact that the first paragraph should be a single sentence because rustdoc
treats these as item descriptions / synopses on module pages.
Split an item bounds and an item's super predicates
This is the moral equivalent of #107614, but instead for predicates this applies to **item bounds**. This PR splits out the item bounds (i.e. *all* predicates that are assumed to hold for the alias) from the item *super predicates*, which are the subset of item bounds which share the same self type as the alias.
## Why?
Much like #107614, there are places in the compiler where we *only* care about super-predicates, and considering predicates that possibly don't have anything to do with the alias is problematic. This includes things like closure signature inference (which is at its core searching for `Self: Fn(..)` style bounds), but also lints like `#[must_use]`, error reporting for aliases, computing type outlives predicates.
Even in cases where considering all of the `item_bounds` doesn't lead to bugs, unnecessarily considering irrelevant bounds does lead to a regression (#121121) due to doing extra work in the solver.
## Example 1 - Trait Aliases
This is best explored via an example:
```
type TAIT<T> = impl TraitAlias<T>;
trait TraitAlias<T> = A + B where T: C;
```
The item bounds list for `Tait<T>` will include:
* `Tait<T>: A`
* `Tait<T>: B`
* `T: C`
While `item_super_predicates` query will include just the first two predicates.
Side-note: You may wonder why `T: C` is included in the item bounds for `TAIT`? This is because when we elaborate `TraitAlias<T>`, we will also elaborate all the predicates on the trait.
## Example 2 - Associated Type Bounds
```
type TAIT<T> = impl Iterator<Item: A>;
```
The `item_bounds` list for `TAIT<T>` will include:
* `Tait<T>: Iterator`
* `<Tait<T> as Iterator>::Item: A`
But the `item_super_predicates` will just include the first bound, since that's the only bound that is relevant to the *alias* itself.
## So what
This leads to some diagnostics duplication just like #107614, but none of it will be user-facing. We only see it in the UI test suite because we explicitly disable diagnostic deduplication.
Regarding naming, I went with `super_predicates` kind of arbitrarily; this can easily be changed, but I'd consider better names as long as we don't block this PR in perpetuity.
