Unify wording of resolve error
Remove "failed to resolve" from the main error message and use the same format we use in other resolution errors "cannot find `name`":
```
error[E0433]: cannot find `nonexistent` in `existent`
--> $DIR/custom_attr_multisegment_error.rs:5:13
|
LL | #[existent::nonexistent]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ could not find `nonexistent` in `existent`
```
The intent behind this is to end up with all resolve errors eventually be on the form of
```
error[ECODE]: cannot find `{NAME}` in {SCOPE}
--> $DIR/file.rs:5:13
|
LL | #[existent::nonexistent]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ {SPECIFIC LABEL}
```
A category of errors that is interest are those that involve keywords. For example:
```
error[E0433]: cannot find `Self` in this scope
--> $DIR/issue-97194.rs:2:35
|
LL | fn bget(&self, index: [usize; Self::DIM]) -> bool {
| ^^^^ `Self` is only available in impls, traits, and type definitions
```
and
```
error[E0433]: cannot find `super` in this scope
--> $DIR/keyword-super.rs:2:9
|
LL | let super: isize;
| ^^^^^ there are too many leading `super` keywords
```
For these the label provides the actual help, while the message is less informative beyond telling you "couldn't find `name`".
This is an off-shoot of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126810 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128086, a subset of the intended changes there with review comments applied.
r? @petrochenkov
Remove "failed to resolve" and use the same format we use in other resolution errors "cannot find `name`".
```
error[E0433]: cannot find `nonexistent` in `existent`
--> $DIR/custom_attr_multisegment_error.rs:5:13
|
LL | #[existent::nonexistent]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ could not find `nonexistent` in `existent`
```
```
error[E0433]: failed to resolve: could not find `doesnt_exist` in `inner`
--> $DIR/diagnostics-cross-crate.rs:18:23
|
LL | cfged_out::inner::doesnt_exist::hello();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ could not find `doesnt_exist` in `inner`
|
note: found an item that was configured out
--> $DIR/auxiliary/cfged_out.rs:6:13
|
LL | #[cfg(false)]
| ----- the item is gated here
LL | pub mod doesnt_exist {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Use a visitor to collect *all* items (including those nested) that were stripped behind a `cfg` condition.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find function `f` in this scope
--> $DIR/nested-cfg-attrs.rs:4:13
|
LL | fn main() { f() }
| ^ not found in this scope
|
note: found an item that was configured out
--> $DIR/nested-cfg-attrs.rs:2:4
|
LL | fn f() {}
| ^
note: the item is gated here
--> $DIR/nested-cfg-attrs.rs:1:35
|
LL | #[cfg_attr(all(), cfg_attr(all(), cfg(FALSE)))]
| ^^^^^^^^^^
```
`tests/ui/issues/`: The Issues Strike Back [1/N]
I believe I’ve finally brought [my program](https://github.com/Kivooeo/test-manager) to life -- it now handles multiple test moves in one go: plain moves first, then a gentle touch on each file depends on given options. The process should be much smoother now.
Of course, I won’t rush through everything in a few days -- that would be unkind to `@Oneirical.` I’ll pace myself. And also I can't have more than one such PR because `issues.txt` will conflict with previous parts after merging them which is not fun as well.
This PR is just that: first commit - moves; second - regression comments and the occasional .stderr reblesses, also issue.txt and tidy changes. Nothing special, but progress nonetheless. This is for the purpose of preserving test file history during restructuring
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133895.
r? `@jieyouxu`
Test fixes for Arm64EC Windows
* `tests/ui/cfg/conditional-compile-arch.rs` needs an Arm64EC case.
* `tests/ui/runtime/backtrace-debuginfo.rs` should skip Arm64EC as it suffers from the same truncated backtraces as Arm64 Windows.
* `tests/ui/linkage-attr/incompatible-flavor.rs` is a general issue: it assumes that the Rust compiler is always built with the x86 target enabled in the backend, but I only enabled AArch64 when building locally to speed up the LLVM compilation.
Support for `f16` and `f128` is varied across targets, backends, and
backend versions. Eventually we would like to reach a point where all
backends support these approximately equally, but until then we have to
work around some of these nuances of support being observable.
Introduce the `cfg_target_has_reliable_f16_f128` internal feature, which
provides the following new configuration gates:
* `cfg(target_has_reliable_f16)`
* `cfg(target_has_reliable_f16_math)`
* `cfg(target_has_reliable_f128)`
* `cfg(target_has_reliable_f128_math)`
`reliable_f16` and `reliable_f128` indicate that basic arithmetic for
the type works correctly. The `_math` versions indicate that anything
relying on `libm` works correctly, since sometimes this hits a separate
class of codegen bugs.
These options match configuration set by the build script at [1]. The
logic for LLVM support is duplicated as-is from the same script. There
are a few possible updates that will come as a follow up.
The config introduced here is not planned to ever become stable, it is
only intended to replace the build scripts for `std` tests and
`compiler-builtins` that don't have any way to configure based on the
codegen backend.
MCP: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/866
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/866
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/555e1d0386f024a8359645c3217f4b3eae9be042/library/std/build.rs#L84-L186
Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals`
Closes#131204
`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated
This will end up conflicting with the test in #138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating
--
# Stabilization Report
## General design
### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
[RFC 3695](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695), none.
### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
None
### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
None
## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
Yes; only positive feedback was received.
## Implementation quality
### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
Implemented in [#131034](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131034).
### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
- [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6d71251cf9e40326461f90f8ff9a7024706aea87/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs)
- [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6d71251cf9e40326461f90f8ff9a7024706aea87/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs)
- [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs)
- [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs)
- Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs`
- Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs`
### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature.
### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None
### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
- `@clubby789` (RFC)
- `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc)
### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
`rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized.
## Type system and execution rules
### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
```
error[E0610]: `{integer}` is a primitive type and therefore doesn't have fields
--> $DIR/attempted-access-non-fatal.rs:7:15
|
LL | let _ = 2.l;
| ^
|
help: if intended to be a floating point literal, consider adding a `0` after the period and a `f64` suffix
|
LL - let _ = 2.l;
LL + let _ = 2.0f64;
|
```
Matthias Krüger