Remove a bunch of diagnostic stashing that doesn't do anything
#121669 removed a bunch of conditional diagnostic stashing/canceling, but left around the `steal` calls which just emitted the error eagerly instead of canceling the diagnostic. I think that these no-op `steal` calls don't do much and are confusing to encounter, so let's remove them.
The net effect is:
1. We emit more duplicated errors, since stashing has the side effect of duplicating diagnostics. This is not a big deal, since outside of `-Zdeduplicate-diagnostics=no`, the errors are already being deduplicated by the compiler.
2. It changes the order of diagnostics, since we're no longer stashing and then later stealing the errors. I don't think this matters much for the changes that the UI test suite manifests, and it makes these errors less order dependent.
the behavior of the type system not only depends on the current
assumptions, but also the currentnphase of the compiler. This is
mostly necessary as we need to decide whether and how to reveal
opaque types. We track this via the `TypingMode`.
Try to point out when edition 2024 lifetime capture rules cause borrowck issues
Lifetime capture rules in 2024 are modified to capture more lifetimes, which sometimes lead to some non-local borrowck errors. This PR attempts to link these back together with a useful note pointing out the capture rule changes.
This is not a blocking concern, but I'd appreciate feedback (though, again, I'd like to stress that I don't want to block this PR on this): I'm worried about this note drowning in the sea of other diagnostics that borrowck emits. I was tempted to change the level of the note to `.span_warn` just so it would show up in a different color. Thoughts?
Fixes#130545
Opening as a draft first since it's stacked on #131183.
r? `@ghost`
Add `LayoutS::is_uninhabited` and use it
Use accessors for the things that accessors are good at: reducing everyone's need to be nosy and peek at the internals of every data structure.
Depend on rustc_abi in compiler crates that use it indirectly but have
not yet taken on that dependency, and are not entangled in my other PRs.
This leaves an "excise rustc_target" step after the dust settles.
make unsupported_calling_conventions a hard error
This has been a future-compat lint (not shown in dependencies) since Rust 1.55, released 3 years ago. Hopefully that was enough time so this can be made a hard error now. Given that long timeframe, I think it's justified to skip the "show in dependencies" stage. There were [not many crates hitting this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86231#issuecomment-866300943) even when the lint was originally added.
This should get cratered, and I assume then it needs a t-compiler FCP. (t-compiler because this looks entirely like an implementation oversight -- for the vast majority of ABIs, we already have a hard error, but some were initially missed, and we are finally fixing that.)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87678
Check ABI target compatibility for function pointers
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130260
Related tracking issue: #87678
Compatibility of an ABI for a target was previously only performed on function definitions and `extern` blocks. This PR adds it also to function pointers to be consistent.
This might have broken some of the `tests/ui/` depending on the platform, so a try run seems like a good idea.
Also this might break existing code, because we now emit extra errors. Does this require a crater run?
# Example
```rust
// build with: --target=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
// These raise E0570
extern "thiscall" fn foo() {}
extern "thiscall" { fn bar() }
// This did not raise any error
fn baz(f: extern "thiscall" fn()) { f() }
```
# Open Questions
* [x] Should this report a future incompatibility warning like #87678 ?
* [ ] Is this the best place to perform the check?
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
