| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|
Keep more information about trait binding failures.
|
|
|
|
Store idents for `DefPathData` into crate metadata
Previously, we threw away the `Span` associated with a definition's
identifier when we encoded crate metadata, causing us to lose location
and hygiene information.
We now store the identifier's `Span` in a side table, which gets encoded
into the crate metadata. When we decode items from the metadata, we
combine the name and span back into an `Ident`.
This improves the output of several tests, which previously had messages
suppressed due to dummy spans.
This is a prerequisite for #68686, since throwing away a `Span` means
that we lose hygiene information.
|
|
|
|
Previously, we threw away the `Span` associated with a definition's
identifier when we encoded crate metadata, causing us to lose location
and hygiene information.
We now store the identifier's `Span` in the crate metadata.
When we decode items from the metadata, we combine
the name and span back into an `Ident`.
This improves the output of several tests, which previously had messages
suppressed due to dummy spans.
This is a prerequisite for #68686, since throwing away a `Span` means
that we lose hygiene information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the obligation that couldn't be fulfilled is specific to a nested
obligation, maintain both the nested and parent obligations around for
more accurate and detailed error reporting.
|
|
Surface associated type projection bounds that could not be fulfilled in
E0599 errors. Always present the list of unfulfilled trait bounds,
regardless of whether we're pointing at the ADT or trait that didn't
satisfy it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point at the intermediary unfullfilled trait bounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unify output of "variant not found" errors
Fix #49566.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change untagged_unions to not allow union fields with drop
This is a rebase of #56440, massaged to solve merge conflicts and make the test suite pass.
Change untagged_unions to not allow union fields with drop
Union fields may now never have a type with attached destructor. This for example allows unions to use arbitrary field types only by wrapping them in `ManuallyDrop` (or similar).
The stable rule remains, that union fields must be `Copy`. We use the new rule for the `untagged_union` feature.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-Authored-By: Mazdak Farrokhzad <twingoow@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
Union fields may now never have a type with attached destructor.
This for example allows unions to use arbitrary field types only by
wrapping
them in ManuallyDrop.
The stable rule remains, that union fields must be Copy. We use the new
rule for the `untagged_union` feature.
See RFC 2514.
Note for ui tests:
We can't test move out through Box's deref-move since we can't
have a Box in a union anymore.
|
|
|
|
Forbid opaque types in `extern "C"` blocks
Fixes #64338.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tracking issue: #60405
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NLL: Add union justifications to conflicting borrows.
Fixes #57100.
This PR adds justifications to error messages for conflicting borrows of union fields.
Where previously an error message would say ``cannot borrow `u.b` as mutable..``, it now says ``cannot borrow `u` (via `u.b`) as mutable..``.
r? @pnkfelix
|
|
use structured suggestion for method calls
Furthermore, don't suggest calling the method if it is part of a place
expression, as this is invalid syntax.
I'm thinking it might be worth putting a label on the method assignment span like "this is a method" and removing the span from the "methods are immutable" text so it isn't reported twice.
The suggestions in `src/test/ui/did_you_mean/issue-40396.stderr` are suboptimal. I could check if the containing expression is `BinOp`, but I'm not sure if that's general enough. Any ideas?
r? @estebank
|
|
This commit improves diagnostic labels to mention which field a borrow
overlaps with and adds a note explaining that the fields overlap.
|
|
Furthermore, don't suggest calling the method if it is part of a place
expression, as this is invalid syntax.
|