Commit 95e096d6 changed a bunch of size checks already, but more have
been added, so this fixes the new ones the same way: the various size
checks that are conditional on target_arch = "x86_64" were not intended
to apply to x86_64-unknown-linux-gnux32, so add
target_pointer_width = "64" to the conditions.
Detect bare blocks with type ascription that were meant to be a `struct` literal
Address part of #34255.
Potential improvement: silence the other knock down errors in `issue-34255-1.rs`.
Point at unclosed delimiters as part of the primary MultiSpan
Both the place where the parser encounters a needed closed delimiter and
the unclosed opening delimiter are important, so they should get the
same level of highlighting in the output.
_Context: https://twitter.com/mwk4/status/1430631546432675840_
Introduce `let...else`
Tracking issue: #87335
The trickiest part for me was enforcing the diverging else block with clear diagnostics. Perhaps the obvious solution is to expand to `let _: ! = ..`, but I decided against this because, when a "mismatched type" error is found in typeck, there is no way to trace where in the HIR the expected type originated, AFAICT. In order to pass down this information, I believe we should introduce `Expectation::LetElseNever(HirId)` or maybe add `HirId` to `Expectation::HasType`, but I left that as a future enhancement. For now, I simply assert that the block is `!` with a custom `ObligationCauseCode`, and I think this is clear enough, at least to start. The downside here is that the error points at the entire block rather than the specific expression with the wrong type. I left a todo to this effect.
Overall, I believe this PR is feature-complete with regard to the RFC.
Old error output:
3 | let _: usize = $f;
| ----- ^ expected `usize`, found struct `Baz`
| |
| expected due to this
New error output:
3 | let _: usize = $f;
| ----- ^^ expected `usize`, found struct `Baz`
| |
| expected due to this
Old error output:
= note: this warning originates in the macro `foo` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
help: wrap this expression in parentheses
|
4 | break '_l $f(;)
| ^ ^
New error output:
= note: this warning originates in the macro `foo` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
help: wrap this expression in parentheses
|
4 | break '_l ($f);
| ^ ^
Both the place where the parser encounters a needed closed delimiter and
the unclosed opening delimiter are important, so they should get the
same level of highlighting in the output.
- [x] Removed `?const` and change uses of `?const`
- [x] Added `~const` to the AST. It is gated behind const_trait_impl.
- [x] Validate `~const` in ast_validation.
- [ ] Add enum `BoundConstness` to the HIR. (With variants `NotConst` and
`ConstIfConst` allowing future extensions)
- [ ] Adjust trait selection and pre-existing code to use `BoundConstness`.
- [ ] Optional steps (*for this PR, obviously*)
- [ ] Fix#88155
- [ ] Do something with constness bounds in chalk
Allow labeled loops as value expressions for `break`
Fixes#86948. This is currently allowed:
```rust
return 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
break ('label: loop { break 'label 42; });
break 1 + 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
break 'outer 'inner: loop { break 'inner 42; };
```
But not this:
```rust
break 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
```
I have fixed this, so that the above now parses as an unlabeled break with a labeled loop as its value expression.
Fix a parser ICE on invalid `fn` body
Fixes#87635
A better fix would add a check for `fn` body on `expected_one_of_not_found` but I haven't come up with a graceful way. Any idea?
r? ```@oli-obk``` ```@estebank```
After this commit, `unsafe async fn ...` now suggests the `async unsafe` fix
instead of misunderstanding the issue.
This is not perfect for repeated keywords (`const async const`) and for
keywords that are misplaced after `extern "some abi"` because of the way
`check_fn_font_matter` works, but changing it breaks so many tests and
diagnostics it has been judged too high a cost for this PR.
Add diagnostics for mistyped inclusive range
Inclusive ranges are correctly typed as `..=`. However, it's quite easy to think of it as being like `==`, and type `..==` instead. This PR adds helpful diagnostics for this case.
Resolves#86395 (there are some other cases there, but I think those should probably have separate issues).
r? `@estebank`
Stabilize "RangeFrom" patterns in 1.55
Implements a partial stabilization of #67264 and #37854.
Reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/900
# Stabilization Report
This stabilizes the `X..` pattern, shown as such, offering an exhaustive match for unsigned integers:
```rust
match x as u32 {
0 => println!("zero!"),
1.. => println!("positive number!"),
}
```
Currently if a Rust author wants to write such a match on an integer, they must use `1..={integer}::MAX` . By allowing a "RangeFrom" style pattern, this simplifies the match to not require the MAX path and thus not require specifically repeating the type inside the match, allowing for easier refactoring. This is particularly useful for instances like the above case, where different behavior on "0" vs. "1 or any positive number" is desired, and the actual MAX is unimportant.
Notably, this excepts slice patterns which include half-open ranges from stabilization, as the wisdom of those is still subject to some debate.
## Practical Applications
Instances of this specific usage have appeared in the compiler:
16143d1067/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/inhabitedness/mod.rs (L219)673d0db5e3/compiler/rustc_ty_utils/src/ty.rs (L524)
And I have noticed there are also a handful of "in the wild" users who have deployed it to similar effect, especially in the case of rejecting any value of a certain number or greater. It simply makes it much more ergonomic to write an irrefutable match, as done in Katholieke Universiteit Leuven's [SCALE and MAMBA project](05e5db00d5/WebAssembly/scale_std/src/fixed_point.rs (L685-L695)).
## Tests
There were already many tests in [src/test/ui/half-open-range/patterns](90a2e5e3fe/src/test/ui/half-open-range-patterns), as well as [generic pattern tests that test the `exclusive_range_pattern` feature](673d0db5e3/src/test/ui/pattern/usefulness/integer-ranges/reachability.rs), many dating back to the feature's introduction and remaining standing to this day. However, this stabilization comes with some additional tests to explore the... sometimes interesting behavior of interactions with other patterns. e.g. There is, at least, a mild diagnostic improvement in some edge cases, because before now, the pattern `0..=(5+1)` encounters the `half_open_range_patterns` feature gate and can thus emit the request to enable the feature flag, while also emitting the "inclusive range with no end" diagnostic. There is no intent to allow an `X..=` pattern that I am aware of, so removing the flag request is a strict improvement. The arrival of the `J | K` "or" pattern also enables some odd formations.
Some of the behavior tested for here is derived from experiments in this [Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=58777b3c715c85165ac4a70d93efeefc) example, linked at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67264#issuecomment-812770692, which may be useful to reference to observe the current behavior more closely.
In addition tests constituting an explanation of the "slicing range patterns" syntax issue are included in this PR.
## Desiderata
The exclusive range patterns and half-open range patterns are fairly strongly requested by many authors, as they make some patterns much more natural to write, but there is disagreement regarding the "closed" exclusive range pattern or the "RangeTo" pattern, especially where it creates "off by one" gaps in the presence of a "catch-all" wildcard case. Also, there are obviously no range analyses in place that will force diagnostics for e.g. highly overlapping matches. I believe these should be warned on, ideally, and I think it would be reasonable to consider such a blocker to stabilizing this feature, but there is no technical issue with the feature as-is from the purely syntactic perspective as such overlapping or missed matches can already be generated today with such a catch-all case. And part of the "point" of the feature, at least from my view, is to make it easier to omit wildcard matches: a pattern with such an "open" match produces an irrefutable match and does not need the wild card case, making it easier to benefit from exhaustiveness checking.
## History
- Implemented:
- Partially via exclusive ranges: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/35712
- Fully with half-open ranges: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/67258
- Unresolved Questions:
- The precedence concerns of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48501 were considered as likely requiring adjustment but probably wanting a uniform consistent change across all pattern styles, given https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67264#issuecomment-720711656, but it is still unknown what changes might be desired
- How we want to handle slice patterns in ranges seems to be an open question still, as witnessed in the discussion of this PR!
I checked but I couldn't actually find an RFC for this, and given "approved provisionally by lang team without an RFC", I believe this might require an RFC before it can land? Unsure of procedure here, on account of this being stabilizing a subset of a feature of syntax.
r? `@scottmcm`
Fix ICE when misplaced visibility cannot be properly parsed
Fixes#86895
The issue was that a failure to parse the visibility was causing the original error to be dropped before being emitted.
The resulting error isn't quite as nice as when the visibility is parsed properly, but I'm not sure which error to prioritize here. Displaying both errors might be too confusing.
r? ```@estebank```
