| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
When encountering an unmet trait bound, point at local type that doesn't implement the trait:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `Bar<T>: Foo` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/issue-64855.rs:9:19
|
LL | pub struct Bar<T>(<Self as Foo>::Type) where Self: ;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unsatisfied trait bound
|
help: the trait `Foo` is not implemented for `Bar<T>`
--> $DIR/issue-64855.rs:9:1
|
LL | pub struct Bar<T>(<Self as Foo>::Type) where Self: ;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
|
|
|
|
```
error[E0610]: `{integer}` is a primitive type and therefore doesn't have fields
--> $DIR/attempted-access-non-fatal.rs:7:15
|
LL | let _ = 2.l;
| ^
|
help: if intended to be a floating point literal, consider adding a `0` after the period and a `f64` suffix
|
LL - let _ = 2.l;
LL + let _ = 2.0f64;
|
```
|
|
parameters when showing the definition.
|
|
Don't pick `T: FnPtr` nested goals as the leaf goal in diagnostics for new solver
r? `@lcnr`
See `tests/ui/traits/next-solver/diagnostics/dont-pick-fnptr-bound-as-leaf.rs` for a minimized example of what code this affects the diagnostics off. The output of running nightly `-Znext-solver` on that test is the following:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `Foo: Trait` is not satisfied
--> src/lib.rs:14:20
|
14 | requires_trait(Foo);
| -------------- ^^^ the trait `FnPtr` is not implemented for `Foo`
| |
| required by a bound introduced by this call
|
note: required for `Foo` to implement `Trait`
--> src/lib.rs:7:16
|
7 | impl<T: FnPtr> Trait for T {}
| ----- ^^^^^ ^
| |
| unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
note: required by a bound in `requires_trait`
--> src/lib.rs:11:22
|
11 | fn requires_trait<T: Trait>(_: T) {}
| ^^^^^ required by this bound in `requires_trait`
```
Part of rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative#148
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harmonize using root or leaf obligation in trait error reporting
When #121826 changed the error reporting to use root obligation and not the leafmost obligation, it didn't actually make sure that all the other diagnostics helper functions used the right obligation.
Specifically, when reporting similar impl candidates we are looking for impls of the root obligation, but trying to match them against the trait ref of the leaf obligation.
This does a few other miscellaneous changes. There's a lot more clean-up that could be done here, but working with this code is really grief-inducing due to how messy it has become over the years. Someone really needs to show it love. 😓
r? ``@estebank``
Fixes #126129
|
|
|
|
|
|
find_best_leaf_obligation causes inference side-effects
|
|
|
|
|
