| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
Use head span for `rustc_on_unimplemented`'s `enclosing_scope` attr
This may make #101281 slightly easier to understand
|
|
safe transmute: use `Assume` struct to provide analysis options
This task was left as a TODO in #92268; resolving it brings [`BikeshedIntrinsicFrom`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/mem/trait.BikeshedIntrinsicFrom.html) more in line with the API defined in [MCP411](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/411).
**Before:**
```rust
pub unsafe trait BikeshedIntrinsicFrom<
Src,
Context,
const ASSUME_ALIGNMENT: bool,
const ASSUME_LIFETIMES: bool,
const ASSUME_VALIDITY: bool,
const ASSUME_VISIBILITY: bool,
> where
Src: ?Sized,
{}
```
**After:**
```rust
pub unsafe trait BikeshedIntrinsicFrom<Src, Context, const ASSUME: Assume = { Assume::NOTHING }>
where
Src: ?Sized,
{}
```
`Assume::visibility` has also been renamed to `Assume::safety`, as library safety invariants are what's actually being assumed; visibility is just the mechanism by which it is currently checked (and that may change).
r? `@oli-obk`
---
Related:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/411
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99571
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make trait bound not satisfied specify kind
Closes #99875
|
|
|
|
r=davidtwco
Porting 'compiler/rustc_trait_selection' to translatable diagnostics - Part 1
``@rustbot`` label +A-translation
r? rust-lang/diagnostics
cc #100717
|
|
|
|
|
|
by module
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attempt to normalize `FnDef` signature in `InferCtxt::cmp`
Stashes a normalization callback in `InferCtxt` so that the signature we get from `tcx.fn_sig(..).subst(..)` in `InferCtxt::cmp` can be properly normalized, since we cannot expect for it to have normalized types since it comes straight from astconv.
This is kind of a hack, but I will say that `@jyn514` found the fact that we present unnormalized types to be very confusing in real life code, and I agree with that feeling. Though altogether I am still a bit unsure about whether this PR is worth the effort, so I'm open to alternatives and/or just closing it outright.
On the other hand, this isn't a ridiculously heavy implementation anyways -- it's less than a hundred lines of changes, and half of that is just miscellaneous cleanup.
This is stacked onto #100471 which is basically unrelated, and it can be rebased off of that when that lands or if needed.
---
The code:
```rust
trait Foo { type Bar; }
impl<T> Foo for T {
type Bar = i32;
}
fn foo<T>(_: <T as Foo>::Bar) {}
fn needs_i32_ref_fn(f: fn(&'static i32)) {}
fn main() {
needs_i32_ref_fn(foo::<()>);
}
```
Before:
```
= note: expected fn pointer `fn(&'static i32)`
found fn item `fn(<() as Foo>::Bar) {foo::<()>}`
```
After:
```
= note: expected fn pointer `fn(&'static i32)`
found fn item `fn(i32) {foo::<()>}`
```
|
|
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #95376 (Add `vec::Drain{,Filter}::keep_rest`)
- #100092 (Fall back when relating two opaques by substs in MIR typeck)
- #101019 (Suggest returning closure as `impl Fn`)
- #101022 (Erase late bound regions before comparing types in `suggest_dereferences`)
- #101101 (interpret: make read-pointer-as-bytes a CTFE-only error with extra information)
- #101123 (Remove `register_attr` feature)
- #101175 (Don't --bless in pre-push hook)
- #101176 (rustdoc: remove unused CSS selectors for `.table-display`)
- #101180 (Add another MaybeUninit array test with const)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Erase late bound regions before comparing types in `suggest_dereferences`
Fixes #101020
|
|
This reverts commit 326646074940222d602f3683d0559088690830f4.
This is the revert against master, the beta revert was already done in #100538.
|
|
|
|
bump tracing version
Bump tracing dependency to 0.1.35 to give us features like printing the return value of functions
|
|
Improve const mismatch `FulfillmentError`
Fixes #100414
|
|
Avoid cloning a collection only to iterate over it
`@rustbot` label: +C-cleanup
|
|
no unnormalized types for implied bounds outside borrowck
fixes #100910 - introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100676 - by only considering normalized types for wf.
r? types
|
|
|
|
Avoid reporting overflow in `is_impossible_method`
Fixes #100620
We're evaluating a new predicate in a different param-env than it was checked during typeck, so be more careful about handling overflow errors. Instead of using `FulfillmentCtxt`, using `InferCtxt::evaluate_obligation` by itself will give us back the overflow error, so we can throw it away properly.
This may give us more false-positives, but it doesn't regress the `<HashMap as Iterator>::rev` example that originally motivated adding `is_impossible_method` in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stabilize `#![feature(label_break_value)]`
See the stabilization report in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1186213313.
|
|
|
|
|
|
spastorino:coherence-negative-impls-implied-bounds, r=lcnr
Coherence negative impls implied bounds
Fixes #93875
This PR is rebased on top of #100789 and it would need to include that one which is already r+ed.
r? ``@nikomatsakis``
cc ``@lcnr`` (which I've talked about https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/commit/3222f420d9d2312efe0735eb48160c7b070adc54, I guess after you finish your reordering of modules and work with OutlivesEnvironmentEnv this commit can just be reverted).
|
|
# Stabilization proposal
The feature was implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/50045 by est31 and has been in nightly since 2018-05-16 (over 4 years now).
There are [no open issues][issue-label] other than the tracking issue. There is a strong consensus that `break` is the right keyword and we should not use `return`.
There have been several concerns raised about this feature on the tracking issue (other than the one about tests, which has been fixed, and an interaction with try blocks, which has been fixed).
1. nrc's original comment about cost-benefit analysis: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422235234
2. joshtriplett's comments about seeing use cases: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422281176
3. withoutboats's comments that Rust does not need more control flow constructs: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-450050630
Many different examples of code that's simpler using this feature have been provided:
- A lexer by rpjohnst which must repeat code without label-break-value: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422502014
- A snippet by SergioBenitez which avoids using a new function and adding several new return points to a function: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-427628251. This particular case would also work if `try` blocks were stabilized (at the cost of making the code harder to optimize).
- Several examples by JohnBSmith: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-434651395
- Several examples by Centril: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-440154733
- An example by petrochenkov where this is used in the compiler itself to avoid duplicating error checking code: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-443557569
- Amanieu recently provided another example related to complex conditions, where try blocks would not have helped: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1184213006
Additionally, petrochenkov notes that this is strictly more powerful than labelled loops due to macros which accidentally exit a loop instead of being consumed by the macro matchers: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-450246249
nrc later resolved their concern, mostly because of the aforementioned macro problems.
joshtriplett suggested that macros could be able to generate IR directly
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-451685983) but there are no open RFCs,
and the design space seems rather speculative.
joshtriplett later resolved his concerns, due to a symmetry between this feature and existing labelled break: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-632960804
withoutboats has regrettably left the language team.
joshtriplett later posted that the lang team would consider starting an FCP given a stabilization report: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1111269353
[issue-label]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AF-label_break_value+
## Report
+ Feature gate:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/src/test/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-label_break_value.rs
+ Diagnostics:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6b2d3d5f3cd1e553d87b5496632132565b6779d3/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs#L2629
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L749
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L1001
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/111df9e6eda1d752233482c1309d00d20a4bbf98/compiler/rustc_passes/src/loops.rs#L254
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L2079
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L1569
+ Tests:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_continue.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_unlabeled_break.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_illegal_uses.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/lint/unused_labels.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/run-pass/for-loop-while/label_break_value.rs
## Interactions with other features
Labels follow the hygiene of local variables.
label-break-value is permitted within `try` blocks:
```rust
let _: Result<(), ()> = try {
'foo: {
Err(())?;
break 'foo;
}
};
```
label-break-value is disallowed within closures, generators, and async blocks:
```rust
'a: {
|| break 'a
//~^ ERROR use of unreachable label `'a`
//~| ERROR `break` inside of a closure
}
```
label-break-value is disallowed on [_BlockExpression_]; it can only occur as a [_LoopExpression_]:
```rust
fn labeled_match() {
match false 'b: { //~ ERROR block label not supported here
_ => {}
}
}
macro_rules! m {
($b:block) => {
'lab: $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
unsafe $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
|x: u8| -> () $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
}
}
fn foo() {
m!({});
}
```
[_BlockExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/block-expr.html
[_LoopExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/loop-expr.html
|
|
InferCtxt tainted_by_errors_flag should be Option<ErrorGuaranteed>
Fixes #100321.
Use Cell<Option<ErrorGuaranteed>> to guarantee that we emit an error when that flag is set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use separate infcx to solve obligations during negative coherence
I feel like I fixed this already but I may have fixed it then forgot to push the branch...
Also fixes up some redundant param-envs being passed around (since they're already passed around in the `Obligation`)
Fixes #99662
r? ``@spastorino``
|
|
This was left as a TODO in #92268, and brings the trait more in
line with what was defined in MCP411.
`Assume::visibility` has been renamed to `Assume::safety`, as
library safety is what's actually being assumed; visibility is
just the mechanism by which it is currently checked (this may
change).
ref: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/411
ref: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99571
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #93162 (Std module docs improvements)
- #99386 (Add tests that check `Vec::retain` predicate execution order.)
- #99915 (Recover keywords in trait bounds)
- #100694 (Migrate rustc_ast_passes diagnostics to `SessionDiagnostic` and translatable messages (first part))
- #100757 (Catch overflow early)
Failed merges:
- #99917 (Move Error trait into core)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Catch overflow early
Although this code should raise an overflow error, it didn't because [check_recursion_limit](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_trait_selection/traits/select/struct.SelectionContext.html#method.check_recursion_limit) it checks for `depth = 128` but not for `129` which should have triggered the overflow error. Anyways this catches that error early.
Fixes #95134
|
|
implied bounds: explicitly state which types are assumed to be wf
Adds a new query which maps each definition to the types which that definition assumes to be well formed. The intent is to make it easier to reason about implied bounds.
This change should not influence the user-facing behavior of rustc. Notably, `borrowck` still only assumes that the function signature of associated functions is well formed while `wfcheck` assumes that the both the function signature and the impl trait ref is well formed. Not sure if that by itself can trigger UB or whether it's just annoying.
As a next step, we can add `WellFormed` predicates to `predicates_of` of these items and can stop adding the wf bounds at each place which uses them. I also intend to move the computation from `assumed_wf_types` to `implied_bounds` into the `param_env` computation. This requires me to take a deeper look at `compare_predicate_entailment` which is currently somewhat weird wrt implied bounds so I am not touching this here.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
