Rollup of 3 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #117869 ([rustdoc] Add highlighting for comments in items declaration)
- #118525 (coverage: Skip spans that can't be un-expanded back to the function body)
- #118574 (rustc_session: Address all `rustc::potential_query_instability` lints)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
coverage: Skip spans that can't be un-expanded back to the function body
When we extract coverage spans from MIR, we try to "un-expand" them back to spans that are inside the function's body span.
In cases where that doesn't succeed, the current code just swaps in the entire body span instead. But that tends to result in coverage spans that are completely unrelated to the control flow of the affected code, so it's better to just discard those spans.
---
Extracted from #118305, since this is a general improvement that isn't specific to branch coverage.
---
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
[rustdoc] Add highlighting for comments in items declaration
Fixes#117555.
So after the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117643, the outcome was that having the comments in the item declaration at the same level (in term of color) as the rest of the code was actually a bit distracting and could be improved.
The current highlighting color for comments is "lighter" than the rest and I think it fits perfectly to improve the current situation. With this, we now have different "levels" which makes it easier to read and filter out what we want when reading the items declaration.
Here's a screenshot:
r? `@notriddle`
Provide structured suggestion for type mismatch in loop
We currently provide only a `help` message, this PR introduces the last two structured suggestions instead:
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> $DIR/issue-98982.rs:2:5
|
LL | fn foo() -> i32 {
| --- expected `i32` because of return type
LL | / for i in 0..0 {
LL | | return i;
LL | | }
| |_____^ expected `i32`, found `()`
|
note: the function expects a value to always be returned, but loops might run zero times
--> $DIR/issue-98982.rs:2:5
|
LL | for i in 0..0 {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this might have zero elements to iterate on
LL | return i;
| -------- if the loop doesn't execute, this value would never get returned
help: return a value for the case when the loop has zero elements to iterate on
|
LL ~ }
LL ~ /* `i32` value */
|
help: otherwise consider changing the return type to account for that possibility
|
LL ~ fn foo() -> Option<i32> {
LL | for i in 0..0 {
LL ~ return Some(i);
LL ~ }
LL ~ None
|
```
Fix#98982.
Report errors in jobserver inherited through environment variables
This pr attempts to catch situations, when jobserver exists, but is not being inherited.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Because a macro invocation can expand to a never pattern, we can't rule
out a `arm!(),` arm at parse time. Instead we detect that case at
expansion time, if the macro tries to output a pattern followed by `=>`.
When we extract coverage spans from MIR, we try to "un-expand" them back to
spans that are inside the function's body span.
In cases where that doesn't succeed, the current code just swaps in the entire
body span instead. But that tends to result in coverage spans that are
completely unrelated to the control flow of the affected code, so it's better
to just discard those spans.
bendn