Min specialization improvements
- Don't allow specialization impls with no items, such implementations are probably not correct and only occur as mistakes in the compiler and standard library
- Fix a missing normalization call
- Adds spans for lifetime errors from overly general specializations
Closes#79457Closes#109815
Support return-type bounds on associated methods from supertraits
Support `T: Trait<method(): Bound>` when `method` comes from a supertrait, aligning it with the behavior of associated type bounds (both equality and trait bounds).
The only wrinkle is that I have to extend `super_predicates_that_define_assoc_type` to look for *all* items, not just `AssocKind::Ty`. This will also be needed to support `feature(associated_const_equality)` as well, which is subtly broken when it comes to supertraits, though this PR does not fix those yet. There's a slight chance there's a perf regression here, in which case I guess I could split it out into a separate query.
Such implementations are usually mistakes and are not used in the
compiler or standard library (after this commit) so forbid them with
`min_specialization`.
Explicitly reject negative and reservation drop impls
Fixes#110858
It doesn't really make sense for a type to have a `!Drop` impl. Or at least, I don't want us to implicitly assign a meaning to it by the way the compiler *currently* handles it (incompletely), and rather I would like to see a PR (or an RFC...) assign a meaning to `!Drop` if we actually wanted one for it.
Add `ConstParamTy` trait
This is a bit sketch, but idk.
r? `@BoxyUwU`
Yet to be done:
- [x] ~~Figure out if it's okay to implement `StructuralEq` for primitives / possibly remove their special casing~~ (it should be okay, but maybe not in this PR...)
- [ ] Maybe refactor the code a little bit
- [x] Use a macro to make impls a bit nicer
Future work:
- [ ] Actually™ use the trait when checking if a `const` generic type is allowed
- [ ] _Really_ refactor the surrounding code
- [ ] Refactor `marker.rs` into multiple modules for each "theme" of markers
feat: implement better error for manual impl of `Fn*` traits
Fixes#39259
cc `@estebank` (you gave me some advice in the linked issue, would you like to review?)
Instead of loading the Fluent resources for every crate in
`rustc_error_messages`, each crate generates typed identifiers for its
own diagnostics and creates a static which are pulled together in the
`rustc_driver` crate and provided to the diagnostic emitter.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
As a workaround for the full `#[refine]` semantics not being implemented
yet, forbit returning a concrete future type like `Box<dyn Future>` or a
manually implemented Future.
`-> impl Future` is still permitted; while that can also cause
accidental refinement, that's behind a different feature gate
(`return_position_impl_trait_in_trait`) and that problem exists
regardless of whether the trait method is async, so will have to be
solved more generally.
Fixes#102745
This ensures that the error is printed even for unused variables,
as well as unifying the handling between the LLVM and GCC backends.
This also fixes unusual behavior around exported Rust-defined variables
with linkage attributes. With the previous behavior, it appears to be
impossible to define such a variable such that it can actually be imported
and used by another crate. This is because on the importing side, the
variable is required to be a pointer, but on the exporting side, the
type checker rejects static variables of pointer type because they do
not implement `Sync`. Even if it were possible to import such a type, it
appears that code generation on the importing side would add an unexpected
additional level of pointer indirection, which would break type safety.
This highlighted that the semantics of linkage on Rust-defined variables
is different to linkage on foreign items. As such, we now model the
difference with two different codegen attributes: linkage for Rust-defined
variables, and import_linkage for foreign items.
This change gives semantics to the test
src/test/ui/linkage-attr/auxiliary/def_illtyped_external.rs which was
previously expected to fail to compile. Therefore, convert it into a
test that is expected to successfully compile.
The update to the GCC backend is speculative and untested.
Change #[suggestion_*] attributes to use style="..."
As discussed [on Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/336883-i18n/topic/.23100717.20tool_only_span_suggestion), this changes `#[(multipart_)suggestion_{short,verbose,hidden}(...)]` attributes to plain `#[(multipart_)suggestion(...)]` attributes with a `style = "{short,verbose,hidden}"` parameter.
It also adds a new style, `tool-only`, that corresponds to `tool_only_span_suggestion`/`tool_only_multipart_suggestion` and causes the suggestion to not be shown in human-readable output at all.
Best reviewed commit-by-commit, there's a bit of noise in there.
cc #100717 `@compiler-errors`
r? `@davidtwco`
Track where diagnostics were created.
This implements the `-Ztrack-diagnostics` flag, which uses `#[track_caller]` to track where diagnostics are created. It is meant as a debugging tool much like `-Ztreat-err-as-bug`.
For example, the following code...
```rust
struct A;
struct B;
fn main(){
let _: A = B;
}
```
...now emits the following error message:
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src\main.rs:5:16
|
5 | let _: A = B;
| - ^ expected struct `A`, found struct `B`
| |
| expected due to this
-Ztrack-diagnostics: created at compiler\rustc_infer\src\infer\error_reporting\mod.rs:2275:31
```
Note scope of TAIT more accurately
This maybe explains why the person was confused in #101897, since we say "same module" but really should've said "same impl".
r? ``@oli-obk``
