| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
This will allow us to eagerly translate messages on a top-level
diagnostic, such as a `LintDiagnostic`. As a bonus, we can remove the
awkward closure passed into Subdiagnostic and make better use of
`Into`.
|
|
|
|
Add new `PatKind::Missing` variants
To avoid some ugly uses of `kw::Empty` when handling "missing" patterns, e.g. in bare fn tys. Helps with #137978. Details in the individual commits.
r? ``@oli-obk``
|
|
add `TypingMode::Borrowck`
Shares the first commit with #138499, doesn't really matter which PR to land first :blush: :grin:
Introduces `TypingMode::Borrowck` which unlike `TypingMode::Analysis`, uses the hidden type computed by HIR typeck as the initial value of opaques instead of an unconstrained infer var. This is a part of https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/129.
Using this new `TypingMode` is unfortunately a breaking change for now, see tests/ui/impl-trait/non-defining-uses/as-projection-term.rs. Using an inference variable as the initial value results in non-defining uses in the defining scope. We therefore only enable it if with `-Znext-solver=globally` or `-Ztyping-mode-borrowck`
To do that the PR contains the following changes:
- `TypeckResults::concrete_opaque_type` are already mapped to the definition of the opaque type
- writeback now checks that the non-lifetime parameters of the opaque are universal
- for this, `fn check_opaque_type_parameter_valid` is moved from `rustc_borrowck` to `rustc_trait_selection`
- we add a new `query type_of_opaque_hir_typeck` which, using the same visitors as MIR typeck, attempts to merge the hidden types from HIR typeck from all defining scopes
- done by adding a `DefiningScopeKind` flag to toggle between using borrowck and HIR typeck
- the visitors stop checking that the MIR type matches the HIR type. This is trivial as the HIR type are now used as the initial hidden types of the opaque. This check is useful as a safeguard when not using `TypingMode::Borrowck`, but adding it to the new structure is annoying and it's not soundness critical, so I intend to not add it back.
- add a `TypingMode::Borrowck` which behaves just like `TypingMode::Analysis` except when normalizing opaque types
- it uses `type_of_opaque_hir_typeck(opaque)` as the initial value after replacing its regions with new inference vars
- it uses structural lookup in the new solver
fixes #112201, fixes #132335, fixes #137751
r? `@compiler-errors` `@oli-obk`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Missing" patterns are possible in bare fn types (`fn f(u32)`) and
similar places. Currently these are represented in the AST with
`ast::PatKind::Ident` with no `by_ref`, no `mut`, an empty ident, and no
sub-pattern. This flows through to `{hir,thir}::PatKind::Binding` for
HIR and THIR.
This is a bit nasty. It's very non-obvious, and easy to forget to check
for the exceptional empty identifier case.
This commit adds a new variant, `PatKind::Missing`, to do it properly.
The process I followed:
- Add a `Missing` variant to `{ast,hir,thir}::PatKind`.
- Chang `parse_param_general` to produce `ast::PatKind::Missing`
instead of `ast::PatKind::Missing`.
- Look through `kw::Empty` occurrences to find functions where an
existing empty ident check needs replacing with a `PatKind::Missing`
check: `print_param`, `check_trait_item`, `is_named_param`.
- Add a `PatKind::Missing => unreachable!(),` arm to every exhaustive
match identified by the compiler.
- Find which arms are actually reachable by running the test suite,
changing them to something appropriate, usually by looking at what
would happen to a `PatKind::Ident`/`PatKind::Binding` with no ref, no
`mut`, an empty ident, and no subpattern.
Quite a few of the `unreachable!()` arms were never reached. This makes
sense because `PatKind::Missing` can't happen in every pattern, only
in places like bare fn tys and trait fn decls.
I also tried an alternative approach: modifying `ast::Param::pat` to
hold an `Option<P<Pat>>` instead of a `P<Pat>`, but that quickly turned
into a very large and painful change. Adding `PatKind::Missing` is much
easier.
|
|
Consider fields to be inhabited if they are unstable
Fixes #133885 with a simple heuristic
r? Nadrieril
Not totally certain if this needs T-lang approval or a crater run.
|
|
r=jieyouxu,Nadrieril
Use `Wunused-crate-dependencies` for the compiler
An implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/844.
r? `@jieyouxu`
|
|
It's very useful. There are some false positives involving integration
tests in `rustc_pattern_analysis` and `rustc_serialize`. There is also a
false positive involving `rustc_driver_impl`'s
`rustc_randomized_layouts` feature. And I removed a `rustc_span` mention
in a doc comment in `rustc_log` because it wasn't integral to the
comment but caused a dev-dependency.
|
|
mir_build: consider privacy when checking for irrefutable patterns
This PR fixes #137999.
Note that, since this makes the compiler reject code that was previously accepted, it will probably need a crater run.
I include a commit that factors out a common code pattern into a helper function, purely because the fact that this was repeated all over the place was bothering me. Let me know if I should split that into a separate PR instead.
|
|
-Zforce-unstable-if-unmarked to be uninhabited
|
|
|
|
It's no longer necessary now that `-Wunreachable_pub` is being passed.
|
|
And fix the new errors in the handful of crates that didn't have a
`#![warn(unreachable_pub)]`.
|
|
Revert <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138084> to buy time to
consider options that avoids breaking downstream usages of cargo on
distributed `rustc-src` artifacts, where such cargo invocations fail due
to inability to inherit `lints` from workspace root manifest's
`workspace.lints` (this is only valid for the source rust-lang/rust
workspace, but not really the distributed `rustc-src` artifacts).
This breakage was reported in
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138304>.
This reverts commit 48caf81484b50dca5a5cebb614899a3df81ca898, reversing
changes made to c6662879b27f5161e95f39395e3c9513a7b97028.
|
|
(Except for `rustc_codegen_cranelift`.)
It's no longer necessary now that `unreachable_pub` is in the workspace
lints.
|
|
And fix the new errors in the handful of crates that didn't have a
`#![warn(unreachable_pub)]`.
|
|
By naming them in `[workspace.lints.rust]` in the top-level
`Cargo.toml`, and then making all `compiler/` crates inherit them with
`[lints] workspace = true`. (I omitted `rustc_codegen_{cranelift,gcc}`,
because they're a bit different.)
The advantages of this over the current approach:
- It uses a standard Cargo feature, rather than special handling in
bootstrap. So, easier to understand, and less likely to get
accidentally broken in the future.
- It works for proc macro crates.
It's a shame it doesn't work for rustc-specific lints, as the comments
explain.
|
|
A check for `#[non_exhaustive]` is often done in combination with
checking whether the type is local to the crate, in a variety of ways.
Create a helper method and standardize on it as the way to check for
this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's similar to the other limits, e.g. obtained via `get_limit`. So it
makes sense to handle it consistently with the other limits. We now use
`Limit`/`usize` in most places instead of `Option<usize>`, so we use
`Limit::new(usize::MAX)`/`usize::MAX` to emulate how `None` used to work.
The commit also adds `Limit::unlimited`.
|
|
|
|
This should make it clearer that this bitset is dense, with the
advantages and disadvantages that it entails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point at `const` definition when used instead of a binding in a `let` statement
Modify `PatKind::InlineConstant` to be `ExpandedConstant` standing in not only for inline `const` blocks but also for `const` items. This allows us to track named `const`s used in patterns when the pattern is a single binding. When we detect that there is a refutable pattern involving a `const` that could have been a binding instead, we point at the `const` item, and suggest renaming. We do this for both `let` bindings and `match` expressions missing a catch-all arm if there's at least one single binding pattern referenced.
After:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | const PAT: u32 = 0;
| -------------- missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
...
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^ pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
help: introduce a variable instead
|
LL | let PAT_var = v1;
| ~~~~~~~
```
Before:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^
| |
| pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
| missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
| help: introduce a variable instead: `PAT_var`
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
```
CC #132582.
|
|
the behavior of the type system not only depends on the current
assumptions, but also the currentnphase of the compiler. This is
mostly necessary as we need to decide whether and how to reveal
opaque types. We track this via the `TypingMode`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
After:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | const PAT: u32 = 0;
| -------------- missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
...
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^
| |
| pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
| help: introduce a variable instead: `PAT_var`
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
```
Before:
```
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in local binding
--> $DIR/bad-pattern.rs:19:13
|
LL | let PAT = v1;
| ^^^
| |
| pattern `1_u32..=u32::MAX` not covered
| missing patterns are not covered because `PAT` is interpreted as a constant pattern, not a new variable
| help: introduce a variable instead: `PAT_var`
|
= note: `let` bindings require an "irrefutable pattern", like a `struct` or an `enum` with only one variant
= note: for more information, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-02-refutability.html
= note: the matched value is of type `u32`
```
|
|
|
|
Depend on rustc_abi in compiler crates that use it indirectly but have
not yet taken on that dependency, and are not entangled in my other PRs.
This leaves an "excise rustc_target" step after the dust settles.
|
|
|
|
This brings in the new algorithm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replace calls to `ty::Const::{try_}eval` in mir build/pattern analysis
We normalize consts in writeback: #130645. This means that consts are gonna be as normalized as they're ever gonna get in MIR building and pattern analysis. Therefore we can just use `try_to_target_usize` rather than calling `eval_target_usize`.
Regarding the `.expect` calls, I'm not totally certain whether they're correct given rigid unevaluated consts. But this PR shouldn't make *more* ICEs occur; we may have to squash these ICEs when mGCE comes around, tho 😺
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-exhaustive structs may be empty
This is a follow-up to a discrepancy noticed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122792: today, the following struct is considered inhabited (non-empty) outside its defining crate:
```rust
#[non_exhaustive]
pub struct UninhabitedStruct {
pub never: !,
// other fields
}
```
`#[non_exhaustive]` on a struct should mean that adding fields to it isn't a breaking change. There is no way that adding fields to this struct could make it non-empty since the `never` field must stay and is inconstructible. I suspect this was implemented this way due to confusion with `#[non_exhaustive]` enums, which indeed should be considered non-empty outside their defining crate.
I propose that we consider such a struct uninhabited (empty), just like it would be without the `#[non_exhaustive]` annotation.
Code that doesn't pass today and will pass after this:
```rust
// In a different crate
fn empty_match_on_empty_struct<T>(x: UninhabitedStruct) -> T {
match x {}
}
```
This is not a breaking change.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove `print::Pat` from the printing of `WitnessPat`
After the preliminary work done in #128536, we can now get rid of `print::Pat` entirely.
- First, we introduce a variant `PatKind::Print(String)`.
- Then we incrementally remove each other variant of `PatKind`, by having the relevant code produce `PatKind::Print` instead.
- Once `PatKind::Print` is the only remaining variant, it becomes easy to remove `print::Pat` and replace it with `String`.
There is more cleanup that I have in mind, but this seemed like a natural stopping point for one PR.
r? ```@Nadrieril```
|
