Most modules have such a blank line, but some don't. Inserting the blank
line makes it clearer that the `//!` comments are describing the entire
module, rather than the `use` declaration(s) that immediately follows.
Uplift next trait solver to `rustc_next_trait_solver`
🎉
There's so many FIXMEs! Sorry! Ideally this merges with the FIXMEs and we track and squash them over the near future.
Also, this still doesn't build on anything other than rustc. I still need to fix `feature = "nightly"` in `rustc_type_ir`, and remove and fix all the nightly feature usage in the new trait solver (notably: let-chains).
Also, sorry `@lcnr` I know you asked for me to separate the commit where we `mv rustc_trait_selection/solve/... rustc_next_trait_solver/solve/...`, but I had already done all the work by that point. Luckily, `git` understands the file moves so it should still be relatively reviewable.
If this is still very difficult to review, then I can do some rebasing magic to try to separate this out. Please let me know!
r? lcnr
Introduce `{IndexNewtype,SyntaxContext}::from_u16` for convenience because small indices are sometimes encoded as `u16`.
Use `SpanData::span` instead of `Span::new` where appropriate.
Add a clarifying comment about decoding span parents.
Make proof tree probing and `Candidate`/`CandidateSource` generic over interner
`<TyCtxt<'tcx>>` is ugly, but will become `<I>` when things actually become generic.
r? lcnr
Use `Variance` glob imported variants everywhere
Fully commit to using the globbed variance. Could be convinced the other way, and change this PR to not use the globbed variants anywhere, but I'd rather we do one or the other.
r? lcnr
Use `tidy` to sort crate attributes for all compiler crates.
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g. `allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes), sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates, increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`, because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
r? `@davidtwco`
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
Avoid unwrap diag.code directly in note_and_explain_type_err
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Fixes#125757
Make `body_owned_by` return the `Body` instead of just the `BodyId`
fixes#125677
Almost all `body_owned_by` callers immediately called `body`, too, so just return `Body` directly.
This makes the inline-const query feeding more robust, as all calls to `body_owned_by` will now yield a body for inline consts, too.
I have not yet figured out a good way to make `tcx.hir().body()` return an inline-const body, but that can be done as a follow-up
