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: ;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Gate static closures behind a parser feature
I'd like to gate `static ||` closures behind a feature gate, since we shouldn't allow people to take advantage of this syntax if it's currently unstable. Right now, since it's only rejected after ast lowering, it's accessible to macros.
Let's crater this to see if we can claw it back without breaking anyone's code.
In order to expose edition dependent divergences in some tests in the test suite, add explicit `edition` annotations. Some of these tests might require additional work to *avoid* the divergences, as they might have been unintentional. These are not exhaustive changes, purely opportunistic while looking at something else.
Unimplement unsized_locals
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/630
Tracking issue here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111942
Note that this just removes the feature, not the implementation, and does not touch `unsized_fn_params`. This is because it is required to support `Box<dyn FnOnce()>: FnOnce()`.
There may be more that should be removed (possibly in follow up prs)
- the `forget_unsized` function and `forget` intrinsic.
- the `unsized_locals` test directory; I've just fixed up the tests for now
- various codegen support for unsized values and allocas
cc ``@JakobDegen`` ``@oli-obk`` ``@Noratrieb`` ``@programmerjake`` ``@bjorn3``
``@rustbot`` label F-unsized_locals
Fixesrust-lang/rust#79409
```
error[E0277]: `()` is not a future
--> $DIR/unnecessary-await.rs:28:10
|
LL | e!().await;
| ^^^^^ `()` is not a future
|
= help: the trait `Future` is not implemented for `()`
= note: () must be a future or must implement `IntoFuture` to be awaited
= note: required for `()` to implement `IntoFuture`
help: remove the `.await`
|
LL - e!().await;
LL + e!();
|
```
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `String: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/const-fn-in-vec.rs:1:47
|
LL | static _MAYBE_STRINGS: [Option<String>; 5] = [None; 5];
| ^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `String`
|
= note: required for `Option<String>` to implement `Copy`
= note: the `Copy` trait is required because this value will be copied for each element of the array
help: create an inline `const` block
|
LL | static _MAYBE_STRINGS: [Option<String>; 5] = [const { None }; 5];
| +++++++ +
```
This adds an `iter!` macro that can be used to create movable
generators.
This also adds a yield_expr feature so the `yield` keyword can be used
within iter! macro bodies. This was needed because several unstable
features each need `yield` expressions, so this allows us to stabilize
them separately from any individual feature.
Co-authored-by: Oli Scherer <github35764891676564198441@oli-obk.de>
Co-authored-by: Jieyou Xu <jieyouxu@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Travis Cross <tc@traviscross.com>
MIR borrowck taints its output if an obligation fails. This could then cause
`check_coroutine_obligations` to silence its error, causing us to not emit
and actual error and ICE.
Implement `pin!()` using `super let`
Tracking issue for super let: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076
This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.
This means we can remove [the hack](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138717) we had to put in to fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138596.
It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.
While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.
It'd help [the experiment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
```
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;
|
```
`best_blame_constraint`: Blame better constraints when the region graph has cycles from invariance or `'static`
This fixes#132749 by changing which constraint is blamed for region errors in several cases. `best_blame_constraint` had a heuristic that tried to pinpoint the constraint causing an error by filtering out any constraints where the outliving region is unified with the ultimate target region being outlived. However, it used the SCCs of the region graph to do this, which is unreliable; in particular, if the target region is `'static`, or if there are cycles from the presence of invariant types, it was skipping over the constraints it should be blaming. As is the case in that issue, this could lead to confusing diagnostics. The simplest fix seems to work decently, judging by test stderr: this makes `best_blame_constraint` no longer filter constraints by their outliving region's SCC.
There are admittedly some quirks in the test output. In many cases, subdiagnostics that depend on the particular constraint being blamed have either started or stopped being emitted. After starting at this for quite a while, I think anything too fickle about whether it outputs based on the particular constraint being blamed should instead be looking at the constraint path as a whole, similar to what's done for [the placeholder-from-predicate note](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...dianne:rust:better-blame-constraints-for-static#diff-3c0de6462469af483c9ecdf2c4b00cb26192218ef2d5c62a0fde75107a74caaeR506).
Very many tests involving invariant types gained a note pointing out the types' invariance, but in a few cases it was lost. A particularly illustrative example is [tests/ui/lifetimes/copy_modulo_regions.stderr](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...dianne:rust:better-blame-constraints-for-static?expand=1#diff-96e1f8b29789b3c4ce2f77a5e0fba248829b97ef9d1ce39e7d2b4aa57b2cf4f0); I'd argue the new constraint is a better one to blame, but it lacks the variance diagnostic information that's elsewhere in the constraint path. If desired, I can try making that note check the whole path rather than just the blamed constraint.
The subdiagnostic [`BorrowExplanation::add_object_lifetime_default_note`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_borrowck/diagnostics/explain_borrow/enum.BorrowExplanation.html#method.add_object_lifetime_default_note) depends on a `Cast` being blamed, so [a special case](364ca7f99c) was necessary to keep it from disappearing from tests specifically testing for it. However, see the FIXME comment in that commit; I think the special case should be removed once that subdiagnostic works properly, but it's nontrivial enough to warrant a separate PR. Incidentally, this removes the note from a test where it was being added erroneously: in [tests/ui/borrowck/two-phase-surprise-no-conflict.stderr](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...dianne:rust:better-blame-constraints-for-static?expand=1#diff-8cf085af8203677de6575a45458c9e6b03412a927df879412adec7e4f7ff5e14), the object lifetime is explicitly provided and it's not `'static`.
The SCCs of the region graph are not a reliable heuristic to use for blaming an interesting
constraint for diagnostics. For region errors, if the outlived region is `'static`, or the involved
types are invariant in their lifetiems, there will be cycles in the constraint graph containing both
the target region and the most interesting constraints to blame. To get better diagnostics in these
cases, this commit removes that heuristic.
Use `PostBorrowckAnalysis` in `check_coroutine_obligations`
This currently errors with:
```
error: concrete type differs from previous defining opaque type use
--> tests/ui/coroutine/issue-52304.rs:10:21
|
10 | pub fn example() -> impl Coroutine {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `{example::{closure#0} upvar_tys=() resume_ty=() yield_ty=&'{erased} i32 return_ty=() witness={example::{closure#0}}}`, got `{example::{closure#0} upvar_tys=() resume_ty=() yield_ty=&'static i32 return_ty=() witness={example::{closure#0}}}`
|
= note: previous use here
```
This is because we end up redefining the opaque in `check_coroutine_obligations` but with the `yield_ty = &'erased i32` from hir typeck, which causes the *equality* check for opaques to fail.
The coroutine obligtions in question (when `-Znext-solver` is enabled) are:
```
Binder { value: TraitPredicate(<Opaque(DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), []) as std::marker::Sized>, polarity:Positive), bound_vars: [] }
Binder { value: AliasRelate(Term::Ty(Alias(Opaque, AliasTy { args: [], def_id: DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), .. })), Equate, Term::Ty(Coroutine(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), [(), (), &'{erased} i32, (), CoroutineWitness(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), []), ()]))), bound_vars: [] }
Binder { value: AliasRelate(Term::Ty(Coroutine(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), [(), (), &'{erased} i32, (), CoroutineWitness(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), []), ()])), Subtype, Term::Ty(Alias(Opaque, AliasTy { args: [], def_id: DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), .. }))), bound_vars: [] }
```
Ignoring the fact that we end up stalling some really dumb obligations here (lol), I think it makes more sense for us to be using post borrowck analysis for this check anyways.
r? lcnr
