| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Only point at the end of the crate. We could try making it point at the
beginning of the crate, but that is confused with `DUMMY_SP`, causing
the output to be *worse*.
This change will make it so that VSCode will *not* underline the whole
file when `main` is missing, so other errors will be visible.
|
|
This keeps `reason` around for the time being. This is necessary to
avoid breakage during the bootstrap process. This change, as a whole,
brings `#[rustc_deprecated]` more in line with `#[deprecated]`.
|
|
(There is another issue, in that the fixed output is not ideally indented, but
that is a pre-existing issue and should not block this PR.)
|
|
Delay bug in expr adjustment when check_expr is called multiple times
Instead of including slightly more complicated logic in `check_argument_types` to fix the bug (#94516) I introduced in #94438, and inevitably have this bug appear once again when some other diagnostic is written that causes `check_expr` to be called an expression during a (bad) code path, just delay the bug in adjustment logic.
I am open to other implementations that don't delay the bug here.
Fixes #94516
|
|
TaKO8Ki:fix-invalid-unresolved-imports-errors-for-asterisk-wildcard-syntax, r=estebank
Fix invalid `unresolved imports` errors for a single-segment import
closes #90248
|
|
Add well known values to `--check-cfg` implementation
This pull-request adds well known values for the well known names via `--check-cfg=values()`.
[RFC 3013: Checking conditional compilation at compile time](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3013-conditional-compilation-checking.html#checking-conditional-compilation-at-compile-time) doesn't define this at all, but this seems a nice improvement.
The activation is done by a empty `values()` (new syntax) similar to `names()` except that `names(foo)` also activate well known names while `values(aa, "aa", "kk")` would not.
As stated this use a different activation logic because well known values for the well known names are not always sufficient.
In fact this is problematic for every `target_*` cfg because of non builtin targets, as the current implementation use those built-ins targets to create the list the well known values.
The implementation is straight forward, first we gather (if necessary) all the values (lazily or not) and then we apply them.
r? ```@petrochenkov```
|
|
|
|
Follow up to #92959. Address #94508.
|
|
This better captures the actual behavior, rather than using hacks around
whether the assignment has any projections.
|
|
Do not recover from `Ty?` in macro parsing
Follow up to #92746. Address #94510.
|
|
Add #[track_caller] to track callers when initializing poisoned Once
This PR is for this Issue.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87707
With this fix, we expect to be able to track the caller when poisoned Once is initialized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ensure stability directives are checked in all cases
Split off #93017
Stability and deprecation were not checked in all cases, for instance if a type error happened.
This PR moves the check earlier in the pipeline to ensure the errors are emitted in all cases.
r? `@lcnr`
|
|
use a path variabale
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follow up to #92746. Address #94510.
|
|
Remove the everybody loops pass
It isn't used anymore by rustdoc.
Split out of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/92895. There has been some previous discussion there.
|
|
Generalize get_nullable_type to accept types that have an all-ones bit
pattern as their sentry "null" value.
This will allow [`OwnedFd`], [`BorrowedFd`], [`OwnedSocket`], and
[`BorrowedSocket`] to be marked with
`#[rustc_nonnull_optimization_guaranteed]`, which will allow
`Option<OwnedFd>`, `Option<BorrowedFd>`, `Option<OwnedSocket>`, and
`Option<BorrowedSocket>` to be used in FFI declarations, as described
in the [I/O safety RFC].
For example, it will allow a function like `open` on Unix and `WSASocketW`
on Windows to be declared using `Option<OwnedFd>` and `Option<OwnedSocket>`
return types, respectively.
The actual change to add `#[rustc_nonnull_optimization_guaranteed]`
to the abovementioned types will be a separate PR, as it'll depend on
having this patch in the stage0 compiler.
Also, update the diagnostics to mention that "niche optimizations" are
used in libstd as well as libcore, as `rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start`
and `rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_end` are already in use in libstd.
[`OwnedFd`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c9dc44be24c58ff13ce46416c4b97ab5c1bd8429/library/std/src/os/fd/owned.rs#L49
[`BorrowedFd`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c9dc44be24c58ff13ce46416c4b97ab5c1bd8429/library/std/src/os/fd/owned.rs#L29
[`OwnedSocket`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c9dc44be24c58ff13ce46416c4b97ab5c1bd8429/library/std/src/os/windows/io/socket.rs#L51
[`BorrowedSocket`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c9dc44be24c58ff13ce46416c4b97ab5c1bd8429/library/std/src/os/windows/io/socket.rs#L29
[I/O safety RFC]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3128-io-safety.md#ownedfd-and-borrowedfdfd-1
|
|
then we just suggest the first legal position where you could inject a use.
To do this, I added `inject_use_span` field to `ModSpans`, and populate it in
parser (it is the span of the first token found after inner attributes, if any).
Then I rewrote the use-suggestion code to utilize it, and threw out some stuff
that is now unnecessary with this in place. (I think the result is easier to
understand.)
Then I added a test of issue 87613.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #92697 (Use cgroup quotas for calculating `available_parallelism`)
- #94057 (improve comments for `simplify_type`)
- #94547 (`parse_tt` cleanups)
- #94550 (rustdoc: Add test for higher kinded functions generated by macros)
- #94551 (Doc: Fix use of quote instead of backstick in Adapter::map.)
- #94554 (Fix invalid lint_node_id being put on a removed stmt)
- #94555 (all: fix some typos)
- #94563 (Remove a unnecessary `..` pattern)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Point at method definition that causes type to be consumed.
Fix #94056.
|
|
Fix invalid lint_node_id being put on a removed stmt
This pull-request remove a invalid `assign_id!` being put on an stmt node.
The problem is that this node is being removed away by a cfg making it unreachable when triggering a buffered lint.
The comment in the other match arm already tell to not assign a id because it could have a `#[cfg()]` so this is just respecting the comment.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/94523
r? ```````@petrochenkov```````
|
|
|
|
r=wesleywiser
Implementation of the `expect` attribute (RFC 2383)
This is an implementation of the `expect` attribute as described in [RFC-2383](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2383-lint-reasons.html). The attribute allows the suppression of lint message by expecting them. Unfulfilled lint expectations (meaning no expected lint was caught) will emit the `unfulfilled_lint_expectations` lint at the `expect` attribute.
### Example
#### input
```rs
// required feature flag
#![feature(lint_reasons)]
#[expect(unused_mut)] // Will warn about an unfulfilled expectation
#[expect(unused_variables)] // Will be fulfilled by x
fn main() {
let x = 0;
}
```
#### output
```txt
warning: this lint expectation is unfulfilled
--> $DIR/trigger_lint.rs:3:1
|
LL | #[expect(unused_mut)] // Will warn about an unfulfilled expectation
| ^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(unfulfilled_lint_expectations)]` on by default
```
### Implementation
This implementation introduces `Expect` as a new lint level for diagnostics, which have been expected. All lint expectations marked via the `expect` attribute are collected in the [`LintLevelsBuilder`] and assigned an ID that is stored in the new lint level. The `LintLevelsBuilder` stores all found expectations and the data needed to emit the `unfulfilled_lint_expectations` in the [`LintLevelsMap`] which is the result of the [`lint_levels()`] query.
The [`rustc_errors::HandlerInner`] is the central error handler in rustc and handles the emission of all diagnostics. Lint message with the level `Expect` are suppressed during this emission, while the expectation ID is stored in a set which marks them as fulfilled. The last step is then so simply check if all expectations collected by the [`LintLevelsBuilder`] in the [`LintLevelsMap`] have been marked as fulfilled in the [`rustc_errors::HandlerInner`]. Otherwise, a new lint message will be emitted.
The implementation of the `LintExpectationId` required some special handling to make it stable between sessions. Lints can be emitted during [`EarlyLintPass`]es. At this stage, it's not possible to create a stable identifier. The level instead stores an unstable identifier, which is later converted to a stable `LintExpectationId`.
### Followup TO-DOs
All open TO-DOs have been marked with `FIXME` comments in the code. This is the combined list of them:
* [ ] The current implementation doesn't cover cases where the `unfulfilled_lint_expectations` lint is actually expected by another `expect` attribute.
* This should be easily possible, but I wanted to get some feedback before putting more work into this.
* This could also be done in a new PR to not add to much more code to this one
* [ ] Update unstable documentation to reflect this change.
* [ ] Update unstable expectation ids in [`HandlerInner::stashed_diagnostics`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_errors/struct.HandlerInner.html#structfield.stashed_diagnostics)
### Open questions
I also have a few open questions where I would like to get feedback on:
1. The RFC discussion included a suggestion to change the `expect` attribute to something else. (Initiated by `@Ixrec` [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2383#issuecomment-378424091), suggestion from `@scottmcm` to use `#[should_lint(...)]` [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2383#issuecomment-378648877)). No real conclusion was drawn on that point from my understanding. Is this still open for discussion, or was this discarded with the merge of the RFC?
2. How should the expect attribute deal with the new `force-warn` lint level?
---
This approach was inspired by a discussion with `@LeSeulArtichaut.`
RFC tracking issue: #54503
Mentoring/Implementation issue: #85549
[`LintLevelsBuilder`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_lint/levels/struct.LintLevelsBuilder.html
[`LintLevelsMap`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/lint/struct.LintLevelMap.html
[`lint_levels()`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/context/struct.TyCtxt.html#method.lint_levels
[`rustc_errors::HandlerInner`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_errors/struct.HandlerInner.html
[`EarlyLintPass`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_lint/trait.EarlyLintPass.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't used anymore by rustdoc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miri/CTFE: properly treat overflow in (signed) division/rem as UB
To my surprise, it looks like LLVM treats overflow of signed div/rem as UB. From what I can tell, MIR `Div`/`Rem` directly lowers to the corresponding LLVM operation, so to make that correct we also have to consider these overflows UB in the CTFE/Miri interpreter engine.
r? `@oli-obk`
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unused doc comments blocks
Fixes #77030.
|
|
Improve allowness of the unexpected_cfgs lint
This pull-request improve the allowness (`#[allow(...)]`) of the `unexpected_cfgs` lint.
Before this PR only crate level `#![allow(unexpected_cfgs)]` worked, now with this PR it also work when put around `cfg!` or if it is in a upper level. Making it work ~for the attributes `cfg`, `cfg_attr`, ...~ for the same level is awkward as the current code is design to give "Some parent node that is close to this macro call" (cf. https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_expand/base/struct.ExpansionData.html) meaning that allow on the same line as an attribute won't work. I'm note even sure if this would be possible.
Found while working on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94298.
r? ````````@petrochenkov````````
|
|
Adt copy suggestions
Previously we've only suggested adding `Copy` bounds when the type being moved/copied is a type parameter (generic). With this PR we also suggest adding bounds when a type
- Can be copy
- All predicates that need to be satisfied for that are based on type params
i.e. we will suggest `T: Copy` for `Option<T>`, but won't suggest anything for `Option<String>`.
An example:
```rust
fn duplicate<T>(t: Option<T>) -> (Option<T>, Option<T>) {
(t, t)
}
```
New error (current compiler doesn't provide `help`:):
```text
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `t`
--> t.rs:2:9
|
1 | fn duplicate<T>(t: Option<T>) -> (Option<T>, Option<T>) {
| - move occurs because `t` has type `Option<T>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
2 | (t, t)
| - ^ value used here after move
| |
| value moved here
|
help: consider restricting type parameter `T`
|
1 | fn duplicate<T: Copy>(t: Option<T>) -> (Option<T>, Option<T>) {
| ++++++
```
Fixes #93623
r? ``````````@estebank``````````
``````````@rustbot`````````` label +A-diagnostics +A-suggestion-diagnostics +C-enhancement
----
I'm not at all sure if this is the right implementation for this kind of suggestion, but it seems to work :')
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Add test to expect and the forbid a lint (RFC 2383)
|
|
|
|
* Add UI tests with macros for the `expect` attribute (RFC-2383)
* Addressed review comments - mostly UI test updates (RFC-2383)
* Documented lint level attribute on macro not working bug (RFC-2383)
See `rust#87391`
|
|
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #94464 (Suggest adding a new lifetime parameter when two elided lifetimes should match up for traits and impls.)
- #94476 (7 - Make more use of `let_chains`)
- #94478 (Fix panic when handling intra doc links generated from macro)
- #94482 (compiler: fix some typos)
- #94490 (Update books)
- #94496 (tests: accept llvm intrinsic in align-checking test)
- #94498 (9 - Make more use of `let_chains`)
- #94503 (Provide C FFI types via core::ffi, not just in std)
- #94513 (update Miri)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
r=estebank
Suggest adding a new lifetime parameter when two elided lifetimes should match up for traits and impls.
Suggest adding a new lifetime parameter when two elided lifetimes should match up for functions in traits and impls.
Issue #94462
|
