| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
After #26694, the overloaded operator and "impl not known at method lookup time" cases started triggering the lint.
I've also added checks for overloaded autoderef and method calls via paths (i.e. `T::method()`).
All new 8 test cases did not trigger the lint before #26694.
r? @huonw
|
|
|
|
|
|
Print the error message and then what is expected by the repeat count so the output makes more sense when there is an error in the const expression
|
|
|
|
|
|
this has quite some fallout. but also made lots of stuff more readable imo
[breaking-change] for plugin authors
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many of these have long since reached their stage of being obsolete, so this
commit starts the removal process for all of them. The unstable features that
were deprecated are:
* box_heap
* cmp_partial
* fs_time
* hash_default
* int_slice
* iter_min_max
* iter_reset_fuse
* iter_to_vec
* map_in_place
* move_from
* owned_ascii_ext
* page_size
* read_and_zero
* scan_state
* slice_chars
* slice_position_elem
* subslice_offset
|
|
Many of these have long since reached their stage of being obsolete, so this
commit starts the removal process for all of them. The unstable features that
were deprecated are:
* cmp_partial
* fs_time
* hash_default
* int_slice
* iter_min_max
* iter_reset_fuse
* iter_to_vec
* map_in_place
* move_from
* owned_ascii_ext
* page_size
* read_and_zero
* scan_state
* slice_chars
* slice_position_elem
* subslice_offset
|
|
This does two things:
* removes ast::LocalSource, where only one variant was used because for-loop expansion has changed. One reason that this slipped into here is because the code in `check_local` which checks for `LocalSource::LocalFor` would report the same error as in `check_exhaustive` while using the wrong error code (E0005 instead of E0297).
* silences the warning about already used diagnostic code E0005 (fixes #27279)
passes `make check` locally.
|
|
Fixes #27279
|
|
`LocalSource` indicated wether a let binding originated from for-loop desugaring to enable specialized error messages, but for-loop expansion has changed and this is now achieved through `MatchSource::ForLoopDesugar`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The algorithm was not correctly detecting conflicts after moving
defaults into TypeVariableValue. The updated algorithm
correctly detects and reports conflicts with information about
where the conflict occured and which items the defaults were
introduced by. The span's for said items are not being correctly
attached and still need to be patched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This patch allows type parameter defaults to influence type inference. This is a possible breaking change since it effects the way type inference works and will have different behavior when mixing defaults and literal fallback.
|
|
Correct regression in type-inference caused by failing to reconfirm that
the object trait matches the required trait during trait selection. The
existing code was checking that the object trait WOULD match (in a
probe), but never executing the match outside of a probe.
This corrects various regressions observed in the wild, including
issue #26952. Fixes #26952.
r? @eddyb
cc @frankmcsherry
|
|
***Edit: Fixed now.*** I'm pretty sure the way I'm using LLVMReplaceAllUsesWith here is
unsafe... but before I figure out how to fix that, I'd like a
reality-check: is this actually useful?
|
|
|
|
There isn't any particularly good reason for this restriction, so just
get rid of it, and fix trans to handle this case.
|
|
I'll be adding more commits to this PR as the weekend progresses. Was hoping to make this a mega-PR, but getting some eyes on this early would be nice too.
r? @steveklabnik
r? @eddyb on the object safety bits
cc @michaelsproul
Part of #24407
|
|
- Successful merges: #27137, #27145, #27177, #27193, #27212, #27220, #27229, #27235, #27238, #27244, #27251
- Failed merges:
|
|
Hi all.
This is my first contribution to Rust and fixes an issue causing an invalid error message to be presented to the user when using unit struct as length of a repeat expression, issue #27008. The solution is based on suggestions by @oli-obk, but as I'm a complete newbie to this, I have no clue if I got them right :)
The biggest concern I have is that if the `NodeId` I'm returning is the correct one or not (it's not meaningful in this case but I think it would be nice to get it right).
|
|
Refactors the "desugaring" of closures to expose the types of the upvars. This is necessary to be faithful with how actual structs work. The reasoning of the particular desugaring that I chose is explained in a fairly detailed comment.
As a side-effect, recursive closure types are prohibited unless a trait object intermediary is used. This fixes #25954 and also eliminates concerns about unrepresentable closure types that have infinite size, I believe. I don't believe this can cause regressions because of #25954.
(As for motivation, besides #25954 etc, this work is also intended as refactoring in support of incremental compilation, since closures are one of the thornier cases encountered when attempting to split node-ids into item-ids and within-item-ids. The goal is to eliminate the "internal def-id" distinction in astdecoding. However, I have to do more work on trans to really make progress there.)
r? @nrc
|
|
the object trait matches the required trait during trait selection. The
existing code was checking that the object trait WOULD match (in a
probe), but never executing the match outside of a probe.
This corrects various regressions observed in the wild, including
issue #26952. Fixes #26952.
|
|
Macro desugaring of `in PLACE { BLOCK }` into "simpler" expressions following the in-development "Placer" protocol.
Includes Placer API that one can override to integrate support for `in` into one's own type. (See [RFC 809].)
[RFC 809]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0809-box-and-in-for-stdlib.md
Part of #22181
Replaced PR #26180.
Turns on the `in PLACE { BLOCK }` syntax, while leaving in support for the old `box (PLACE) EXPR` syntax (since we need to support that at least until we have a snapshot with support for `in PLACE { BLOCK }`.
(Note that we are not 100% committed to the `in PLACE { BLOCK }` syntax. In particular I still want to play around with some other alternatives. Still, I want to get the fundamental framework for the protocol landed so we can play with implementing it for non `Box` types.)
----
Also, this PR leaves out support for desugaring-based `box EXPR`. We will hopefully land that in the future, but for the short term there are type-inference issues injected by that change that we want to resolve separately.
|
|
|
|
upvars after analysis is done. Remove the `closure_upvars` helper and
just consult this list of type variables directly.
|
|
is being used now before the final regionck stage and in some cases SOME
amount of unresolved inference is OK. In fact, we could probably just
allow inference variables as well with only minimal pain.
|
|
|
|
TyClosure variant; thread this through wherever closure substitutions
are expected, which leads to a net simplification. Simplify trans
treatment of closures in particular.
|
|
|
|
Makes the lint a bit more accurate, and improves the quality of the diagnostic
messages by explicitly returning an error message.
|
|
Makes the lint a bit more accurate, and improves the quality of the diagnostic
messages by explicitly returning an error message.
The new lint is also a little more aggressive: specifically, it now
rejects tuples, and it recurses into function pointers.
|
|
`push_unsafe!` and `pop_unsafe!`.
|
|
unit-struct path expressions. Fixes #27008
|
|
|
|
Pretty straightforward; just need to make sure to explicitly handle
the generic parameters of each ast::ForeignItemFn.
Fixes #26587.
|
|
As title :-)
Part of #24407.
r? @Manishearth
|
|
It is all `debug!` instrumentation so it should not impose a cost on
non-debug builds.
|
|
|
|
Even after expansion, the generated expressions still track depth of
such pushes (i.e. how often you have "pushed" without a corresponding
"pop"), and we add a rule that in a context with a positive
`push_unsafe!` depth, it is effectively an `unsafe` block context.
(This way, we can inject code that uses `unsafe` features, but still
contains within it a sub-expression that should inherit the outer
safety checking setting, outside of the injected code.)
This is a total hack; it not only needs a feature-gate, but probably
should be feature-gated forever (if possible).
ignore-pretty in test/run-pass/pushpop-unsafe-okay.rs
|
