Revert "review comment: Remove AST AnonTy"
This reverts commit 020cca8d36.
Revert "Ensure macros are not affected"
This reverts commit 12d18e4031.
Revert "Emit fewer errors on patterns with possible type ascription"
This reverts commit c847a01a3b.
Revert "Teach parser to understand fake anonymous enum syntax"
This reverts commit 2d82420665.
Add proc-macro boilerplate to crt-static test
I was seeing this failure when running ui tests with with a `-Cpanic=abort` stdlib targeting fuchsia:
```
---- [ui] tests/ui/proc-macro/crt-static.rs stdout ----
normalized stderr:
warning: building proc macro crate with `panic=abort` may crash the compiler should the proc-macro panic
warning: 1 warning emitted
The actual stderr differed from the expected stderr.
```
`force-host` was enough to stop it from running/failing, not sure if I should also add `needs-unwind`?
Fix syntax in `-Zunpretty-expanded` output for derived `PartialEq`.
If you do `derive(PartialEq)` on a packed struct, the output shown by `-Zunpretty=expanded` includes expressions like this:
```
{ self.x } == { other.x }
```
This is invalid syntax. This doesn't break compilation, because the AST nodes are constructed within the compiler. But it does mean anyone using `-Zunpretty=expanded` output as a guide for hand-written impls could get a nasty surprise.
This commit fixes things by instead using this form:
```
({ self.x }) == ({ other.x })
```
r? ``@RalfJung``
Remove confusing 'while checking' note from opaque future type mismatches
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the wording of the note. The only value I can see in this note is that it points out where the async's opaque future is coming from, but the way it's doing it is misleading IMO.
For example:
```rust
note: while checking the return type of the `async fn`
--> $DIR/dont-suggest-missing-await.rs:7:24
|
LL | async fn make_u32() -> u32 {
| ^^^ checked the `Output` of this `async fn`, found opaque type
```
We point at the type `u32` in the HIR, but then say "found opaque type". We also say "while checking"... but we're typechecking a totally different function when we get this type mismatch!
r? ``@estebank`` but feel free to reassign and/or take your time reviewing this. I'd be inclined to also discuss reworking the presentation of this type mismatch to restore some of these labels in a way that makes it more clear what it's trying to point out.
The check previously matched this, and suggested adding a missing
`struct`:
pub Foo(...):
It was probably intended to match this instead (semicolon instead of
colon):
pub Foo(...);
Strengthen validation of FFI attributes
Previously, `codegen_attrs` validated the attributes `#[ffi_pure]`, `#[ffi_const]`, and `#[ffi_returns_twice]` to make sure that they were only used on foreign functions. However, this validation was insufficient in two ways:
1. `codegen_attrs` only sees items for which code must be generated, so it was unable to raise errors when the attribute was incorrectly applied to macros and the like.
2. the validation code only checked that the item with the attr was foreign, but not that it was a foreign function, allowing these attributes to be applied to foreign statics as well.
This PR moves the validation to `check_attr`, which sees all items. It additionally changes the validation to ensure that the attribute's target is `Target::ForeignFunction`, only allowing the attributes on foreign functions and not foreign statics. Because these attributes are unstable, there is no risk for backwards compatibility. The changes also ending up making the code much easier to read.
This PR is best reviewed commit by commit. Additionally, I was considering moving the tests to the `attribute` subdirectory, to get them out of the general UI directory. I could do that as part of this PR or a follow-up, as the reviewer prefers.
CC: #58328, #58329
Do not depend on Generator trait when deducing closure signature
1. Do not depend on `Generator` trait when deducing closure signature.
2. Compare the name of the `Generator::Return` associated item, rather than its order in the trait. Seems more stable this way.
Fixing confusion between mod and remainder
Like many programming languages, rust too confuses remainder and modulus. The `%` operator and the associated `Rem` trait is (as the trait name suggests) the remainder, but since most people are linguistically more familiar with the modulus the documentation sometimes claims otherwise. This PR tries to fix this problem in rustc.
If you do `derive(PartialEq)` on a packed struct, the output shown by
`-Zunpretty=expanded` includes expressions like this:
```
{ self.x } == { other.x }
```
This is invalid syntax. This doesn't break compilation, because the AST
nodes are constructed within the compiler. But it does mean anyone using
`-Zunpretty=expanded` output as a guide for hand-written impls could get
a nasty surprise.
This commit fixes things by instead using this form:
```
({ self.x }) == ({ other.x })
```
Modify primary span label for E0308
Looking at the reactions to https://hachyderm.io/`@ekuber/109622160673605438,` a lot of people seem to have trouble understanding the current output, where the primary span label on type errors talks about the specific types that diverged, but these can be deeply nested type parameters. Because of that we could see "expected i32, found u32" in the label while the note said "expected Vec<i32>, found Vec<u32>". This understandably confuses people. I believe that once people learn to read these errors it starts to make more sense, but this PR changes the output to be more in line with what people might expect, without sacrificing terseness.
Fix#68220.
Use `ObligationCtxt::new_in_snapshot` in `satisfied_from_param_env`
We can evaluate nested `ConstEvaluatable` obligations in an evaluation probe, which will ICE if we use `ObligationCtxt::new`.
Fixes#107474Fixes#106666
r? `@BoxyUwU` but feel free to reassign
cc `@JulianKnodt` who i think added this assertion code
Not sure if the rustdoc test is needed, but can't hurt. They're the same root cause, though.
Implement unsizing in the new trait solver
This makes hello world compile! Ignore the first commit, that's just #107146 which is waiting on merge.
I'll leave some comments inline about design choices that might be debatable.
r? `@lcnr` (until we have a new trait solver reviewer group...)
Fix invalid float literal suggestions when recovering an integer
Only suggest adding a zero to integers with a preceding dot when the change will result in a valid floating point literal.
For example, `.0x0` should not be turned into `0.0x0`.
r? nnethercote
Only suggest adding a zero to integers with a preceding dot when the change will
result in a valid floating point literal.
For example, `.0x0` should not be turned into `0.0x0`.
Michael Goulet