Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #135340 (Add `explicit_extern_abis` Feature and Enforce Explicit ABIs)
- #139440 (rustc_target: RISC-V: feature addition batch 2)
- #139667 (cfi: Remove #[no_sanitize(cfi)] for extern weak functions)
- #139828 (Don't require rigid alias's trait to hold)
- #139854 (Improve parse errors for stray lifetimes in type position)
- #139889 (Clean UI tests 3 of n)
- #139894 (Fix `opt-dist` CLI flag and make it work without LLD)
- #139900 (stepping into impls for normalization is unproductive)
- #139915 (replace some #[rustc_intrinsic] usage with use of the libcore declarations)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Namely, use a more sensical primary span.
Don't pretty-print AST nodes for the diagnostic message. Why:
* It's lossy (e.g., it doesn't replicate trailing `+`s in trait objects.
* It's prone to leak error nodes (printed as `(/*ERROR*/)`) since
the LHS can easily represent recovered code (e.g., `fn(i32?) + T`).
Notes about tests:
- tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/feature-gate.rs: some messages are
now duplicated due to repeated parsing.
- tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs: ditto.
- `tests/ui/proc-macro/macro-rules-derive-cfg.rs`: the diff looks large
but the only difference is the insertion of a single
invisible-delimited group around a metavar.
- `tests/ui/attributes/nonterminal-expansion.rs`: a slight span
degradation, somehow related to the recent massive attr parsing
rewrite (#135726). I couldn't work out exactly what is going wrong,
but I don't think it's worth holding things up for a single slightly
suboptimal error message.
remove `feature(inline_const_pat)`
Summarizing https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/144729-t-types/topic/remove.20feature.28inline_const_pat.29.20and.20shared.20borrowck.
With https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/129 we will start to borrowck items together with their typeck parent. This is necessary to correctly support opaque types, blocking the new solver and TAIT/ATPIT stabilization with the old one. This means that we cannot really support `inline_const_pat` as they are implemented right now:
- we want to typeck inline consts together with their parent body to allow inference to flow both ways and to allow the const to refer to local regions of its parent.This means we also need to borrowck the inline const together with its parent as that's necessary to properly support opaque types
- we want the inline const pattern to participate in exhaustiveness checking
- to participate in exhaustiveness checking we need to evaluate it, which requires borrowck, which now relies on borrowck of the typeck root, which ends up checking exhaustiveness again. **This is a query cycle**.
There are 4 possible ways to handle this:
- stop typechecking inline const patterns together with their parent
- causes inline const patterns to be different than inline const exprs
- prevents bidirectional inference, we need to either fail to compile `if let const { 1 } = 1u32` or `if let const { 1u32 } = 1`
- region inference for inline consts will be harder, it feels non-trivial to support inline consts referencing local regions from the parent fn
- inline consts no longer participate in exhaustiveness checking. Treat them like `pat if pat == const { .. }` instead. We then only evaluate them after borrowck
- difference between `const { 1 }` and `const FOO: usize = 1; match x { FOO => () }`. This is confusing
- do they carry their weight if they are now just equivalent to using an if-guard
- delay exhaustiveness checking until after borrowck
- should be possible in theory, but is a quite involved change and may have some unexpected challenges
- remove this feature for now
I believe we should either delay exhaustiveness checking or remove the feature entirely. As moving exhaustiveness checking to after borrow checking is quite complex I think the right course of action is to fully remove the feature for now and to add it again once/if we've got that implementation figured out.
`const { .. }`-expressions remain stable. These seem to have been the main motivation for https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/2920.
r? types
cc `@rust-lang/types` `@rust-lang/lang` #76001
StructLiteralNeedingParens is no longer reachable always giving
precedence to StructLiteralNotAllowedHere.
As an aside: The former error struct shouldn't've existed in the
first place. We should've just used the latter in this branch.
Note: there was an existing code path involving `Interpolated` in
`MetaItem::from_tokens` that was dead. This commit transfers that to the
new form, but puts an `unreachable!` call inside it.
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.
With the insertion of a new chapter 17 on async and await to _The Rust
Programming Language_, references in compiler output to later chapters
need to be updated to avoid confusing users. Redirects exist so that
users who click old links will end up in the right place anyway, but
this way users will be directed to the right URL in the first place.
Pasted metavariables are wrapped in invisible delimiters, which
pretty-print as empty strings, and changing that can break some proc
macros. But error messages saying "expected identifer, found ``" are
bad. So this commit adds support for metavariables in `TokenDescription`
so they print as "metavariable" in error messages, instead of "``".
It's not used meaningfully yet, but will be needed to get rid of
interpolated tokens.
Add suggestion for removing invalid path sep `::` in fn def
Add suggestion for removing invalid path separator `::` in function definition.
for example: `fn invalid_path_separator::<T>() {}`
fixes#130791
```
error: expected a pattern, found an expression
--> f889.rs:3:13
|
3 | let (x, y.drop()) = (1, 2); //~ ERROR
| ^^^^^^^^ not a pattern
|
= note: arbitrary expressions are not allowed in patterns: <https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-00-patterns.html>
error[E0532]: expected a pattern, found a function call
--> f889.rs:2:13
|
2 | let (x, drop(y)) = (1, 2); //~ ERROR
| ^^^^ not a tuple struct or tuple variant
|
= note: function calls are not allowed in patterns: <https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-00-patterns.html>
```
Fix#97200.
This PR detects misspelled keywords using two heuristics:
1. Lowercasing the unexpected identifier.
2. Using edit distance to find a keyword similar to the unexpected identifier.
However, it does not detect each and every misspelled keyword to
minimize false positives and ambiguities. More details about the
implementation can be found in the comments.
This makes it possible for the `unsafe(...)` syntax to only be
valid at the top level, and the `NestedMetaItem`s will automatically
reject `unsafe(...)`.
Reorder trait bound modifiers *after* `for<...>` binder in trait bounds
This PR suggests changing the grammar of trait bounds from:
```
[CONSTNESS] [ASYNCNESS] [?] [BINDER] [TRAIT_PATH]
const async ? for<'a> Sized
```
to
```
([BINDER] [CONSTNESS] [ASYNCNESS] | [?]) [TRAIT_PATH]
```
i.e., either
```
? Sized
```
or
```
for<'a> const async Sized
```
(but not both)
### Why?
I think it's strange that the binder applies "more tightly" than the `?` trait polarity. This becomes even weirder when considering that we (or at least, I) want to have `async` trait bounds expressed like:
```
where T: for<'a> async Fn(&'a ()) -> i32,
```
and not:
```
where T: async for<'a> Fn(&'a ()) -> i32,
```
### Fallout
No crates on crater use this syntax, presumably because it's literally useless. This will require modifying the reference grammar, though.
### Alternatives
If this is not desirable, then we can alternatively keep parsing `for<'a>` after the `?` but deprecate it with either an FCW (or an immediate hard error), and begin parsing `for<'a>` *before* the `?`.
Go over all structured parser suggestions and make them verbose style.
When suggesting to add or remove delimiters, turn them into multiple suggestion parts.
Disallow ambiguous attributes on expressions
This implements the suggestion in [#15701](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701#issuecomment-2033124217) to disallow ambiguous outer attributes on expressions. This should resolve one of the concerns blocking the stabilization of `stmt_expr_attributes`.
The current message for "`->` used for field access" is the following:
```rust
error: expected one of `!`, `.`, `::`, `;`, `?`, `{`, `}`, or an operator, found `->`
--> src/main.rs:2:6
|
2 | a->b;
| ^^ expected one of 8 possible tokens
```
(playground link[1])
This PR tries to address this by adding a dedicated error message and recovery. The proposed error message is:
```
error: `->` used for field access or method call
--> ./tiny_test.rs:2:6
|
2 | a->b;
| ^^ help: try using `.` instead
|
= help: the `.` operator will dereference the value if needed
```
(feel free to bikeshed it as much as necessary)
[1]: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=7f8b6f4433aa7866124123575456f54e
Signed-off-by: Sasha Pourcelot <sasha.pourcelot@protonmail.com>
