Use span of placeholders in format_args!() expansion.
`format_args!("{}", x)` expands to something that contains `Argument::new_display(&x)`. That entire expression was generated with the span of `x`.
After this PR, `&x` uses the span of `x`, but the `new_display` call uses the span of the `{}` placeholder within the format string. If an implicitly captured argument was used like in `format_args!("{x}")`, both use the span of the `{x}` placeholder.
This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/109576, and also allows for more improvements to similar diagnostics in the future, since the usage of `x` can now be traced to the exact `{}` placeholder that required it to be `Display` (or `Debug` etc.)
Pass the right HIR back from `get_fn_decl`
Fixes#109232
Makes sure that the `fn_id: HirId` that we pass to `suggest_missing_return_type` matches up with the `fn_decl: hir::FnDecl` that we pass to it, so the late-bound vars that we fetch from the former match up with the types in the latter...
This HIR suggestion code really needs a big refactor. I've tried to do it in the past (a couple of attempts), but it's a super tangled mess. It really shouldn't be passing around things like `hir::Node` and just deal with `LocalDefId`s everywhere... Anyways, I'd rather fix this ICE, now.
Emit diagnostic when calling methods on the unit type in method chains
Fixes#104204.
What this PR does: If a method is not found somewhere in a call chain, we check if we called earlier a method with signature `(&mut T, ...) -> ()`. If this is the case then we emit a diagnostic message.
For example given input:
```
vec![1, 2, 3].into_iter().collect::<Vec<i32>>().sort_by_key(|i| i).sort();
```
the current output is:
```
error[E0599]: no method named `sort` found for unit type `()` in the current scope
--> hello.rs:3:72
|
3 | vec![1, 2, 3].into_iter().collect::<Vec<i32>>().sort_by_key(|i| i).sort();
| ^^^^ method not found in `()`
```
after this PR it will be:
```
error[E0599]: no method named `sort` found for unit type `()` in the current scope
--> ./hello.rs:3:72
|
3 | vec![1, 2, 3].into_iter().collect::<Vec<i32>>().sort_by_key(|i| i).sort();
| ^^^^ method not found in `()`
|
note: method `sort_by_key` modifies its receiver in-place, it is not meant to be used in method chains.
--> ./hello.rs:3:53
|
3 | vec![1, 2, 3].into_iter().collect::<Vec<i32>>().sort_by_key(|i| i).sort();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ this call modifies its receiver in-place
```
If no method is found when checking method call, we check if we called a method with signature (&mut T, ...) -> (). If this is the case then we emit a diagnostic message
Remove `identity_future` indirection
This was previously needed because the indirection used to hide some unexplained lifetime errors, which it turned out were related to the `min_choice` algorithm.
Removing the indirection also solves a couple of cycle errors, large moves and makes async blocks support the `#[track_caller]`annotation.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104826.
This was previously needed because the indirection used to hide some unexplained lifetime errors, which it turned out were related to the `min_choice` algorithm.
Removing the indirection also solves a couple of cycle errors, large moves and makes async blocks support the `#[track_caller]` annotation.
Consider `tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr`,
the error message where it gives additional notes about where the associated
type is defined, and how the dead code lint doesn't have an article,
like in `tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr`. They don't have
articles, so it seems unnecessary to have one here.
Considering the following code
```rust
fn foo() -> u8 {
async fn async_fn() -> u8 { 22 }
async_fn()
}
fn main() {}
```
the error generated before this commit from the compiler is
```
➜ rust git:(macros/async_fn_suggestion) ✗ rustc test.rs --edition 2021
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found opaque type
|
= note: expected type `u8`
found opaque type `impl Future<Output = u8>`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
In this case the error is nor perfect, and can confuse the user
that do not know that the opaque type is the future.
So this commit will propose (and conclude the work start in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80658)
to change the string `opaque type` to `future` when applicable
and also remove the Expected vs Received note by adding a more
specific one regarding the async function that return a future type.
So the new error emitted by the compiler is
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found future
|
note: calling an async function returns a future
--> test.rs:4:5
|
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
Fix problem noticed in PR106859 with char -> u8 suggestion
HN reader `@ayosec` noticed that my #106859 a few weeks back, malfunctions if you have a Unicode escape, the code suggested b'\u{0}' if you tried to use '\u{0}' where a byte should be, when of course b'\u{0}' is not a byte literal, regardless of the codepoint you can't write Unicode escapes in a byte literal at all.
My proposed fix here just checks that the "character" you wrote is fewer than 5 bytes, thus allowing \x7F and similar escapes but conveniently forbidding even the smallest Unicode escape \u{0} before offering the suggestion as before.
I have provided an updated test which includes examples which do and don't work because of this additional rule.
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.
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.
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`.
Dylan DPC