Modify `AttributeTemplate` to support list of alternatives for list and name value attribute styles.
Suggestions now provide more correct suggested code:
```
error[E0805]: malformed `used` attribute input
--> $DIR/used_with_multi_args.rs:3:1
|
LL | #[used(compiler, linker)]
| ^^^^^^------------------^
| |
| expected a single argument here
|
help: try changing it to one of the following valid forms of the attribute
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used(compiler)]
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used(linker)]
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used]
|
```
instead of the prior "masking" of the lack of this feature by suggesting pipe-separated lists:
```
error[E0805]: malformed `used` attribute input
--> $DIR/used_with_multi_args.rs:3:1
|
LL | #[used(compiler, linker)]
| ^^^^^^------------------^
| |
| expected a single argument here
|
help: try changing it to one of the following valid forms of the attribute
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used(compiler|linker)]
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used]
|
```
Account for bare tuples and `Pin` methods in field searching logic
When looking for the field names and types of a given type, account for tuples. This allows suggestions for incorrectly nested field accesses and field name typos to trigger as intended. Previously these suggestions only worked on `ty::Adt`, including tuple structs which are no different to tuples, so they should behave the same in suggestions.
When suggesting field access which would encounter a method not found, do not suggest pinning when those methods are on `impl Pin` itself.
```
error[E0599]: no method named `get_ref` found for tuple `(BufReader<File>,)` in the current scope
--> $DIR/missing-field-access.rs:11:15
|
LL | let x = f.get_ref();
| ^^^^^^^ method not found in `(BufReader<File>,)`
|
help: one of the expressions' fields has a method of the same name
|
LL | let x = f.0.get_ref();
| ++
```
instead of
```
error[E0599]: no method named `get_ref` found for tuple `(BufReader<File>,)` in the current scope
--> $DIR/missing-field-access.rs:11:15
|
LL | let x = f.get_ref();
| ^^^^^^^ method not found in `(BufReader<File>,)`
|
help: consider pinning the expression
|
LL ~ let mut pinned = std::pin::pin!(f);
LL ~ let x = pinned.as_ref().get_ref();
|
```
Fixrust-lang/rust#144602.
`TyCtxt::short_string` ensures that user visible type paths aren't overwhelming on the terminal output, and properly saves the long name to disk as a side-channel. We already use these throughout the compiler and have been using them as needed when users find cases where the output is verbose. This is a proactive search of some cases to use `short_string`.
We add support for shortening the path of "trait path only".
Every manual use of `short_string` is a bright marker that that error should be using structured diagnostics instead (as they have proper handling of long types without the maintainer having to think abou tthem).
When we don't actually print out a shortened type we don't need the "use `--verbose`" note.
On E0599 show type identity to avoid expanding the receiver's generic parameters.
Unify wording on `long_ty_path` everywhere.
Remove false label when `self` resolve failure does not relate to macro
Fixesrust-lang/rust#143134
In the first commit, I did some code-clean, moving `suggest*` to `suggestions/` dir.
In the second, commit, I added ui test.
In the third, I change the code, and present the test result.
r? compiler
variadic functions: remove list of supported ABIs from error
I think this list is problematic for multiple reasons:
- It is bound to go out-of-date as it is in a very different place from where we actually define which functions support varagrs (`fn supports_varargs`).
- Many of the ABIs we list only work on some targets; it makes no sense to mention "aapcs" as a possible ABI when building for x86_64. (This led to a lot of confusion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/110505 where the author thought they should use "cdecl" and then were promptly told that "cdecl" is not a legal ABI on their target.)
- Typically, when the programmer wrote `extern "foobar"`, it is because they need the "foobar" ABI. It is of little use to tell them that there are other ABIs with which varargs would work.
Cc ``@workingjubilee``
const-eval error: always say in which item the error occurred
I don't see why "is this generic" should make a difference. It may be reasonable to key this on whether the error occurs in a `const fn` that was invoked by a const (making it non-obvious which constant it is) vs inside the body of the const.
r? `@oli-obk`
Use the informative error as the main const eval error message
r? `@RalfJung`
I only did the minimal changes necessary to the const eval error machinery. I'd prefer not to mix test changes with refactorings 😆
HIR ty lowering: Clean up & refactor the lowering of type-relative paths
While rebasing #126651 I realized that HIR ty lowering could benefit from some *spring cleaning* now that it's been extended to handle RTN and mGCA paths.
More seriously, similar to my merged PR #118668 which unified the handling of all *associated item constraints* (assoc ty, const (ACE) & fn (RTN)), this PR (commit https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140218/commits/695fcf517d8864b4812225643ef8cfc036ba9f61) partially[^1] deduplicates the resolution code for all *type-relative paths* (assoc ty, const (mGCA) & fn (RTN)).
**Why**? DRY'ing that part of the code means PR #126651 will automatically support RTN paths like `Ty::AssocTy::assoc_fn(..)` and it also implies shared diagnostic code and thus better diagnostics for RTN.
---
The other commits represent cleanups, renamings, moves. More notably, I've renamed path lowering methods to be a lot more descriptive, so ones lowering `QPath(Resolved)` paths now have `_resolved_` in their name and ones lowering `QPath(TypeRelative)` paths now have `_type_relative_` in their name. This should make it stupidly obvious what their purpose is.
---
Best reviewed commit by commit. The changes are close to trivial but the diff might make it look hairier.
r? compiler-errors
[^1]: Sadly, I couldn't unify as much compared to the other PR without introducing unnecessary `unreachable!()`s or rendering the code otherwise illegible with flags and micro helper traits.
Jonathan Brouwer