| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
This reverts commit 22ae20733515d710c1134600bc1e29cdd76f6b9b.
|
|
|
|
fix the false 'defined here' messages
Closes #80853.
Take this code:
```rust
struct S;
fn repro_ref(thing: S) {
thing();
}
```
Previously, the error message would be this:
```
error[E0618]: expected function, found `S`
--> src/lib.rs:4:5
|
3 | fn repro_ref(thing: S) {
| ----- `S` defined here
4 | thing();
| ^^^^^--
| |
| call expression requires function
error: aborting due to previous error
```
This is incorrect as `S` is not defined in the function arguments, `thing` is defined there. With this change, the following is emitted:
```
error[E0618]: expected function, found `S`
--> $DIR/80853.rs:4:5
|
LL | fn repro_ref(thing: S) {
| ----- is of type `S`
LL | thing();
| ^^^^^--
| |
| call expression requires function
|
= note: local variable `S` is not a function
error: aborting due to previous error
```
As you can see, this error message points out that `thing` is of type `S` and later in a note, that `S` is not a function. This change does seem like a downside for some error messages. Take this example:
```
LL | struct Empty2;
| -------------- is of type `Empty2`
```
As you can see, the error message shows that the definition of `Empty2` is of type `Empty2`. Although this isn't wrong, it would be more helpful if it would say something like this (which was there previously):
```
LL | struct Empty2;
| -------------- `Empty2` defined here
```
If there is a better way of doing this, where the `Empty2` example would stay the same as without this change, please inform me.
**Update: This is now fixed**
CC `@camelid`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Account for parser recovered struct and tuple patterns to avoid invalid
suggestion.
Follow up to #81103.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix structured suggestion for explicit `drop` call
|
|
don't suggest erroneous trailing comma after `..`
In #76612, suggestions were added for missing fields in patterns. However, the suggestions are being inserted just at the end
of the last field in the pattern—before any trailing comma after the last field. This resulted in the "if you don't care about missing fields" suggestion to recommend code with a trailing comma after the field ellipsis (`..,`), which is actually not legal ("`..` must be at the end and cannot have a trailing comma")!
Incidentally, the doc-comment on `error_unmentioned_fields` was using `you_cant_use_this_field` as an example field name (presumably copy-paste inherited from the description of Issue #76077), but the present author found this confusing, because unmentioned fields aren't necessarily unusable.
The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to `destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderr` doesn't work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found reserved identifier `_`" thing), so you can't really call it a regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR.
Resolves #78511.
r? `@davidtwco` or `@estebank`
|
|
|
|
|
|
In #76612, suggestions were added for missing fields in
patterns. However, the suggestions are being inserted just at the end
of the last field in the pattern—before any trailing comma after the
last field. This resulted in the "if you don't care about missing
fields" suggestion to recommend code with a trailing comma after the
field ellipsis (`..,`), which is actually not legal ("`..` must be at
the end and cannot have a trailing comma")!
Incidentally, the doc-comment on `error_unmentioned_fields` was using
`you_cant_use_this_field` as an example field name (presumably
copy-paste inherited from the description of Issue #76077), but
the present author found this confusing, because unmentioned fields
aren't necessarily unusable.
The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to
`destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderr` doesn't
work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found
reserved identifier `_`" thing), so you can't really call it a
regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR.
Resolves #78511.
|
|
Suggest `_` and `..` if a pattern has too few fields
Fixes #80010.
|
|
Rework diagnostics for wrong number of generic args (fixes #66228 and #71924)
This PR reworks the `wrong number of {} arguments` message, so that it provides more details and contextual hints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's 'parentheses', not 'parenthesis', when you have more than one.
|
|
For example, this code:
struct S(i32, f32);
let S(x) = S(0, 1.0);
will make the compiler suggest either:
let S(x, _) = S(0, 1.0);
or:
let S(x, ..) = S(0, 1.0);
|
|
|
|
On structured suggestion for `let` -> `const` and `const` -> `let`, use
a proper `Span` and update tests to check the correct application.
Follow up to #80012.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tweak diagnostics on shadowing lifetimes/labels
Fixes #79610
Skip adding a new test assuming we have already sufficient tests.
|
|
|
|
Use true previous lint level when detecting overriden forbids
Previously, cap-lints was ignored when checking the previous forbid level, which
meant that it was a hard error to do so. This is different from the normal
behavior of lints, which are silenced by cap-lints; if the forbid would not take
effect regardless, there is not much point in complaining about the fact that we
are reducing its level.
It might be considered a bug that even `--cap-lints deny` would suffice to
silence the error on overriding forbid, depending on if one cares about failing
the build or precisely forbid being set. But setting cap-lints to deny is quite
odd and not really done in practice, so we don't try to handle it specially.
This also unifies the code paths for nested and same-level scopes. However, the
special case for CLI lint flags is left in place (introduced by #70918) to fix
the regression noted in #70819. That means that CLI flags do not lint on forbid
being overridden by a non-forbid level. It is unclear whether this is a bug or a
desirable feature, but it is certainly inconsistent. CLI flags are a
sufficiently different "type" of place though that this is deemed out of scope
for this commit.
r? `@pnkfelix` perhaps?
cc #77713 -- not marking as "Fixes" because of the lack of proper unused attribute handling in this PR
|
|
Support repr(simd) on ADTs containing a single array field
This is a squash and rebase of `@gnzlbg's` #63531
I've never actually written code in the compiler before so just fumbled my way around until it would build 😅
I imagine there'll be some work we need to do in `rustc_codegen_cranelift` too for this now, but might need some input from `@bjorn3` to know what that is.
cc `@rust-lang/project-portable-simd`
-----
This PR allows using `#[repr(simd)]` on ADTs containing a single array field:
```rust
#[repr(simd)] struct S0([f32; 4]);
#[repr(simd)] struct S1<const N: usize>([f32; N]);
#[repr(simd)] struct S2<T, const N: usize>([T; N]);
```
This should allow experimenting with portable packed SIMD abstractions on nightly that make use of const generics.
|
|
|
|
Fix #58964.
|
|
Previously, cap-lints was ignored when checking the previous forbid level, which
meant that it was a hard error to do so. This is different from the normal
behavior of lints, which are silenced by cap-lints; if the forbid would not take
effect regardless, there is not much point in complaining about the fact that we
are reducing its level.
It might be considered a bug that even `--cap-lints deny` would suffice to
silence the error on overriding forbid, depending on if one cares about failing
the build or precisely forbid being set. But setting cap-lints to deny is quite
odd and not really done in practice, so we don't try to handle it specially.
This also unifies the code paths for nested and same-level scopes. However, the
special case for CLI lint flags is left in place (introduced by #70918) to fix
the regression noted in #70819. That means that CLI flags do not lint on forbid
being overridden by a non-forbid level. It is unclear whether this is a bug or a
desirable feature, but it is certainly inconsistent. CLI flags are a
sufficiently different "type" of place though that this is deemed out of scope
for this commit.
|
|
This PR allows using `#[repr(simd)]` on ADTs containing a
single array field:
```rust
#[repr(simd)] struct S0([f32; 4]);
#[repr(simd)] struct S1<const N: usize>([f32; N]);
#[repr(simd)] struct S2<T, const N: usize>([T; N]);
```
This should allow experimenting with portable packed SIMD
abstractions on nightly that make use of const generics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
passes: `check_attr` on more targets
This PR modifies `check_attr` so that:
- Enum variants are now checked (some attributes would not have been prohibited on variants previously).
- `check_expr_attributes` and `check_stmt_attributes` are removed as `check_attributes` can perform the same checks. This means that codegen attribute errors aren't shown if there are other errors first (e.g. from other attributes, as shown in `src/test/ui/macros/issue-68060.rs` changes below).
|
|
Calculate visibilities once in resolve
Then use them through a query based on resolver outputs.
Item visibilities were previously calculated in three places - initially in `rustc_resolve`, then in `rustc_privacy` during type privacy checkin, and then in `rustc_metadata` during metadata encoding.
The visibility logic is not entirely trivial, especially for things like constructors or enum variants, and all of it was duplicated.
This PR deduplicates all the visibility calculations, visibilities are determined once during early name resolution and then stored in `ResolverOutputs` and are later available through `tcx` as a query `tcx.visibility(def_id)`.
(This query existed previously, but only worked for other crates.)
Some special cases (e.g. visibilities for closure types, which are needed for type privacy checking) are not processed in resolve, but deferred and performed directly in the query instead.
|
|
|
