```
error[E0432]: unresolved import `some_novel_crate`
--> file.rs:1:5
|
1 | use some_novel_crate::Type;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ use of unresolved module or unlinked crate `some_novel_crate`
```
On resolve errors where there might be a missing crate, mention `cargo add foo`:
```
error[E0433]: failed to resolve: use of unresolved module or unlinked crate `nope`
--> $DIR/conflicting-impl-with-err.rs:4:11
|
LL | impl From<nope::Thing> for Error {
| ^^^^ use of unresolved module or unlinked crate `nope`
|
= help: if you wanted to use a crate named `nope`, use `cargo add nope` to add it to your `Cargo.toml`
```
Spruce up the diagnostics of some early lints
Implement the various "*(note to myself) in a follow-up PR we should turn parts of this message into a subdiagnostic (help msg or even struct sugg)*" drive-by comments I left in #124417 during my review.
For context, before #124417, only a few early lints touched/decorated/customized their diagnostic because the former API made it a bit awkward. Likely because of that, things that should've been subdiagnostics were just crammed into the primary message. This PR rectifies this.
When writing a no_std binary, you'll be greeted with nonsensical errors
mentioning lang items like eh_personality and start. That's pretty bad
because it makes you think that you need to define them somewhere! But
oh no, now you're getting the `internal_features` lint telling you that
you shouldn't use them! But you need a no_std binary! What now?
No problem! Writing a no_std binary is super easy. Just use panic=abort
and supply your own platform specific entrypoint symbol (like `main`)
and you're good to go. Would be nice if the compiler told you that,
right?
This makes it so that it does do that.
Esteban Küber