| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
This test case actually requires std::process.
|
|
r=oli-obk
Require `#[const_trait]` on `Trait` for `impl const Trait`
r? `@oli-obk`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit aae37f87632dd74856d55c0cd45d2c192379c990.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This corrects the `span_with_body` in the case of closures, which was
incorrectly shortened to the `def_span`.
|
|
|
|
Opaque types' generic params do not imply anything about their hidden type's lifetimes
fixes #97104
cc ```@aliemjay```
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add list of recognized repr attributes to the unrecognized repr error
|
|
|
|
sized
|
|
Make trait bound not satisfied specify kind
Closes #99875
|
|
|
|
Fix a bunch of typo
This PR will fix some typos detected by [typos].
I only picked the ones I was sure were spelling errors to fix, mostly in
the comments.
[typos]: https://github.com/crate-ci/typos
|
|
This PR will fix some typos detected by [typos].
I only picked the ones I was sure were spelling errors to fix, mostly in
the comments.
[typos]: https://github.com/crate-ci/typos
|
|
r=petrochenkov
Make call suggestions more general and more accurate
Cleans up some suggestions that have to do with adding `()` to make typeck happy.
1. Drive-by rename of `expr_t` to `base_ty` since it's the type of the `base_expr`
1. Autoderef until we get to a callable type in `suggest_fn_call`.
1. Don't erroneously suggest calling constructor when a method/field does not exist on it.
1. Suggest calling a method receiver if its function output has a method (e.g. `fn.method()` => `fn().method()`)
1. Extend call suggestions to type parameters, fn pointers, trait objects where possible
1. Suggest calling in operators too (fixes #101054)
1. Use `/* {ty} */` as argument placeholder instead of just `_`, which is confusing and makes suggestions look less like `if let` syntax.
|
|
Do not report too many expr field candidates
When considering "this expressions' field has a {field/method}" suggestions:
1. Don't report methods that are out of scope
2. Use `span_suggestions` instead of reporting each field candidate, which caps the number of suggestions to 4
4. Blacklist some common traits like `Clone` and `Deref`
Fixes #100894
|
|
|
|
Provide structured suggestion for `hashmap[idx] = val`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
distinguish the method and associated function diagnostic information
Methods are defined within the context of a struct and their first parameter is always self
Associated functions don’t take self as a parameter
```
modified: compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/method/suggest.rs
modified: src/test/ui/auto-ref-slice-plus-ref.stderr
modified: src/test/ui/block-result/issue-3563.stderr
modified: src/test/ui/issues/issue-28344.stderr
modified: src/test/ui/suggestions/dont-suggest-pin-array-dot-set.stderr
modified: src/test/ui/suggestions/suggest-methods.stderr
modified: src/test/ui/traits/trait-upcasting/subtrait-method.stderr
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stabilize `#![feature(label_break_value)]`
See the stabilization report in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1186213313.
|
|
Suggest alternatives when trying to mutate a `HashMap`/`BTreeMap` via indexing
The error can be quite confusing to newcomers.
Fixes #100873.
I'm not so sure about the message, open to wording suggestions.
|
|
# 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
|
|
The error can be quite confusing to newcomers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
