rust/compiler/rustc_error_codes/src, branch betahttps://github.com/rust-lang/rust
http://git.dreamy.place/mirrors/rust/atom?h=beta2025-08-27T18:25:18+00:00Changes to the uitests2025-08-27T18:25:18+00:00Jonathan Brouwerjonathantbrouwer@gmail.com2025-07-16T11:46:25+00:00urn:sha1:7db184056909045802a66299947dc81c8e43e605
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brouwer <jonathantbrouwer@gmail.com>
Rollup merge of #144944 - He1pa:E0793, r=compiler-errors2025-08-15T06:16:32+00:00Stuart CookZalathar@users.noreply.github.com2025-08-15T06:16:32+00:00urn:sha1:b955aa722e190689740e6379eee9684c324e8d1f
E0793: Clarify that it applies to unions as well
pick up inactive PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131472
Also:
Adjust the language slightly to be more consistent with other similar messages (was created instead of got created).
Add a short section on union.
Add an example line showing referencing a field in a packed struct is safe if the field's type isn't more strictly aligned than the pack.
r? compiler-errors
Remove the old target checking logic2025-08-14T16:18:42+00:00Jonathan Brouwerjonathantbrouwer@gmail.com2025-08-09T18:40:47+00:00urn:sha1:5245c399720cf4f2414c2a4d9b4a5007ad942956resolve: Split extern prelude into two scopes2025-08-13T14:45:40+00:00Vadim Petrochenkovvadim.petrochenkov@gmail.com2025-08-01T15:07:59+00:00urn:sha1:772493d51d24dabbffdc54aaf48859eec85d544e
One for `--extern` options and another for `extern crate` items.
E0793: Clarify that it applies to unions as well2025-08-12T03:38:33+00:00黑怕zz307326@antgroup.com2025-08-05T08:40:46+00:00urn:sha1:57901fe09242582608dfbaa047ea006cf0c984a2Update E0562 to account for the new impl trait positions2025-08-02T09:29:04+00:00Noratrieb48135649+Noratrieb@users.noreply.github.com2025-08-02T09:27:38+00:00urn:sha1:870b58f4d060cc63c2969faa3f54da7802c4881eUpdate uitest stderrs2025-07-23T11:33:23+00:00Jonathan Brouwerjonathantbrouwer@gmail.com2025-07-12T15:34:43+00:00urn:sha1:3303534dc8825258f8a5d3a1b1e4572d55cccd9a
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Brouwer <jonathantbrouwer@gmail.com>
Don't reject *multiple* relaxed bounds, reject *duplicate* ones.2025-07-18T10:24:56+00:00León Orell Valerian Liehrme@fmease.dev2025-07-18T10:24:56+00:00urn:sha1:cdc3d701cb4ff37e9d0c96c1c68b2e8789c19441
Having multiple relaxed bounds like `?Sized + ?Iterator` is actually *fine*.
We actually want to reject *duplicate* relaxed bounds like `?Sized + ?Sized`
because these most certainly represent a user error.
Note that this doesn't mean that we accept more code because a bound like
`?Iterator` is still invalid as it's not relaxing a *default* trait and
the only way to define / use more default bounds is under the experimental
and internal feature `more_maybe_bounds` plus `lang_items` plus unstable
flag `-Zexperimental-default-bounds` (historical context: for the longest
time, bounds like `?Iterator` were actually allowed and lead to a hard
warning).
Ultimately, this simply *reframes* the diagnostic. The scope of
`more_maybe_bounds` / `-Zexperimental-default-bounds` remains unchanged
as well.
New example for E05362025-07-15T07:21:27+00:00Jonathan Brouwerjonathantbrouwer@gmail.com2025-07-07T07:10:54+00:00urn:sha1:7a7c74ad89df9f87824fa17fbbe0448d9ab6f7cccompiler: Trim the misleading C of C-cmse from errors2025-06-25T07:52:10+00:00Jubilee Youngworkingjubilee@gmail.com2025-06-07T06:05:47+00:00urn:sha1:383d76106baa2042481de88dfff8ed2043ac50e6