When we recover from a pattern parse error, or a pattern uses `..`, we keep track of that and affect resolution error for missing bindings that could have been provided by that pattern. We differentiate between `..` and parse recovery. We silence resolution errors likely caused by the pattern parse error.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `title` in this scope
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:19:30
|
LL | println!("[{}]({})", title, url);
| ^^^^^ not found in this scope
|
note: `Website` has a field `title` which could have been included in this pattern, but it wasn't
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:17:12
|
LL | / struct Website {
LL | | url: String,
LL | | title: Option<String> ,
| | ----- defined here
LL | | }
| |_-
...
LL | if let Website { url, .. } = website {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this pattern doesn't include `title`, which is available in `Website`
```
Fix#74863.
Add AST support for unsafe binders
I'm splitting up #130514 into pieces. It's impossible for me to keep up with a huge PR like that. I'll land type system support for this next, probably w/o MIR lowering, which will come later.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@BoxyUwU` and `@lcnr` who also may want to look at this, though this PR doesn't do too much yet
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by `mod` expansion.
Fix#97734.
Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681.
Support default fields in enum struct variant
Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition:
```rust
pub enum Bar {
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant
```rust
Bar::Foo { .. }
```
`#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants.
Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields
```rust
pub enum Bar {
#[default]
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build.
Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled).
Properly instantiate MIR const
The following works:
```rust
struct S<A> {
a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(),
}
S::<i32> { .. }
```
Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval
We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users'
getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error
that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to
*always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted.
This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the
expression relies on a const parameter.
Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`:
- Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields.
- Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values.
- Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
Use edition of `macro_rules` when compiling the macro
This changes the edition assigned to a macro_rules macro when it is compiled to use the edition of where the macro came from instead of the local crate's edition.
This fixes a problem when a macro_rules macro is created by a proc-macro. Previously that macro would be tagged with the local edition, which would cause problems with using the correct edition behavior inside the macro. For example, the check for unsafe attributes would cause errors in 2024 when using proc-macros from older editions.
This is partially related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132906. Unfortunately this is only a half fix for that issue. It fixes the error that happens in 2024, but does not fix the lint firing in 2021. I'm still trying to think of some way to fix that, but I'm running low on ideas.
only store valid proc macro item for doc link
Fixes#132743
The definition item can be detected if it is exported in the doc, so store these items rather than skipping.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Update TRPL to add new Chapter 17: Async and Await
- Add support to `rustbook` to pass through the `-L`/`--library-path` flag to `mdbook` so that references to the `trpl` crate
- Build the `trpl` crate as part of the book tests. Make it straightforward to add other such book dependencies in the future if needed by implementing that in a fairly general way.
- Update the submodule for the book to pull in the new chapter on async and await, as well as a number of other fixes. This will happen organically/automatically in a week, too, but this lets me group this change with the next one:
- Update the compiler messages which reference the existing chapters 17–20, which are now chapters 18-21. There are only two, both previously referencing chapter 18.
- Update the UI tests which reference the compiler message outputs.
Re-delay a resolve `bug` related to `Self`-ctor in patterns
For the code pattern reported in <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133272>,
```rs
impl Foo {
fn fun() {
let S { ref Self } = todo!();
}
}
```
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121208> converted this to a `span_bug` from a `span_delayed_bug` because this specific self-ctor code pattern lacked test coverage. It turns out this can be hit but we just lacked test coverage, so change it back to a `span_delayed_bug` and add a targeted test case.
Follow-up to #121208, cc ``@nnethercote`` (very good exercise to expose our test coverage gaps).
Fixes#133272.
For the code pattern reported in
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133272>,
```rs
impl Foo {
fn fun() {
let S { ref Self } = todo!();
}
}
```
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121208> converted this to a
`span_bug` from a `span_delayed_bug` because this specific self-ctor
code pattern lacked test coverage. It turns out this can be hit but we
just lacked test coverage, so change it back to a `span_delayed_bug` and
add a target tested case.
Unify FnKind between AST visitors and make WalkItemKind more straight forward
Unifying `FnKind` requires a bunch of changes to `WalkItemKind::walk` signature so I'll change them in one go
related to #128974
r? `@petrochenkov`
It was added in #115367 for anonymous ADTs. Those changes were then
reverted in #131045, but `empty_disambiguator` was left behind, perhaps
by mistake. It seems to be unnecessary.
`resolve_ident_in_module` is a very thin wrapper around
`resolve_ident_in_module_ext`, and `resolve_ident_in_module_unadjusted`
is a very thin wrapper around `resolve_ident_in_module_unadjusted_ext`.
The wrappers make the call sites slightly more concise, but I don't
think that's worth the extra code and indirection.
This commit removes the two wrappers and removes the `_ext` suffixes
from the inner methods.
Don't use `maybe_unwrap_block` when checking for macro calls in a block expr
Fixes#131915
Using `maybe_unwrap_block` to determine if we are looking at a `{ mac_call!{} }` will fail sometimes as `mac_call!{}` could be a `StmtKind::MacCall` not a `StmtKind::Expr`. This caused the def collector to think that `{ mac_call!{} }` was a non-trivial const argument and create a definition for it even though it should not.
r? `@compiler-errors` cc `@camelid`
Properly suggest `E::assoc` when we encounter `E::Variant::assoc`
Use the right span when encountering an enum variant followed by an associated item so we don't lose the associated item in the resulting code.
Do not suggest the thing twice, once as a removal of the associated item and a second time as a typo suggestion.
Use the right span when encountering an enum variant followed by an associated item so we don't lose the associated item in the resulting code.
Do not suggest the thing twice, once as a removal of the associated item and a second time as a typo suggestion.
