| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check projection types before inlining MIR
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100550
I'm very unhappy with this solution, having to duplicate MIR validation code, but at least it removes the ICE.
r? `@compiler-errors`
|
|
|
|
Stabilization has been completed [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92980#issuecomment-1065644848)
with a FCP.
|
|
Signed-off-by: Alex Saveau <saveau.alexandre@gmail.com>
|
|
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #99332 (Stabilize `#![feature(label_break_value)]`)
- #99954 (let-else: break out to one scope higher for let-else)
- #100188 (Parser will not suggest invalid expression when use public)
- #100780 (save_analysis: Migrate diagnostic)
- #100808 (Migrate `rustc_interface` diagnostics )
- #100921 (Add a warning about `Option/Result::and()` being eagerly evaluated)
- #100960 (rustdoc: ayu code color selector more specific)
- #100964 (Sync rustc_codegen_cranelift)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Fixes #100948.
|
|
-- update summary based on review
-- rewrite explanation to be more clear and correct
|
|
Elide superfluous storage markers
Follow the existing strategy of omitting the storage markers for temporaries
introduced for internal usage when elaborating derefs and deref projections.
Those temporaries are simple scalars which are used immediately after being
defined and never have their address taken. There is no benefit from storage
markers from either liveness analysis or code generation perspective.
|
|
Parser will not suggest invalid expression when use public
Fixes #100165
|
|
r=oli-obk
let-else: break out to one scope higher for let-else
```@est31``` This PR follows up with #99518 which is to break out to the last remainder scope. It breaks to the out-most `region_scope` of the block if the first statement is a `let-else`.
|
|
Stabilize `#![feature(label_break_value)]`
See the stabilization report in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1186213313.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The macro warn_ was named like that because it the
keyword warn is a built-in attribute and at the time
this macro was created the word 'warning' was also
taken.
However it is no longer the case and we can rename
warn_ to warning.
|
|
TaKO8Ki:add-missing-test-case-for-impl-generic-mismatch, r=Dylan-DPC
Add a missing test case for impl generic mismatch
This suggestion use different span depending on whether the method has generics or not, so I added a test case about the method with some generics.
|
|
TaKO8Ki:do-not-suggest-adding-bound-to-opaque-type, r=fee1-dead
Do not suggest adding a bound to a opaque type
fixes #100442
|
|
Use par_body_owners for liveness
I did this refactoring while working on something else. Liveness is about bodies, there is no reason to use par_for_each_module here.
Tests are updated because things are visited in a different order. I checked diagnostics are same, just in a different (and IMO, better) order.
|
|
Diagnose missing includes in run-make tests
|
|
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.
|
|
spastorino:coherence-negative-impls-implied-bounds, r=lcnr
Coherence negative impls implied bounds
Fixes #93875
This PR is rebased on top of #100789 and it would need to include that one which is already r+ed.
r? ``@nikomatsakis``
cc ``@lcnr`` (which I've talked about https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/commit/3222f420d9d2312efe0735eb48160c7b070adc54, I guess after you finish your reordering of modules and work with OutlivesEnvironmentEnv this commit can just be reverted).
|
|
vincenzopalazzo:macros/wrong_sugg_with_positional_arg, r=TaKO8Ki
sugg: take into count the debug formatting
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100648
This PR will fix a suggestion error by taking into consideration also the `:?` symbol and act in a different way
``@rustbot`` r? ``@compiler-errors``
N.B: I did not find a full way to test the change, any idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like expressions, statements, and match arms. This shrinks `thir::Stmt`
and is a precursor to further shrinking `thir::Expr`.
|
|
|
|
# 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
|
|
fluent: mandate slug names to be prefixed by crate name
This is currently only convention, but not actively checked for.
Additionally, improve error messages to highlight the path of the offending fluent file rather than the identifier preceding it.
This will conflict with #100671, so I'll leave it as draft until that's merged.
|
|
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
The error can be quite confusing to newcomers.
|
|
Extend comma suggestion to cases where fields arent missing
Fixes #100300
|
|
Do not re-parse function signatures to suggest generics
This PR uses the existing resolution rib infrastructure to channel the correct span information to suggest generic parameters. This allows to avoid re-parsing a function's source code.
Drive-by cleanup: this removes useless `FnItemRibKind` from late resolution ribs. All the use cases are already covered by `ItemRibKind` and `AssocItemRibKind` which have more precise semantics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
