test(ui): add tuple-struct-where-clause-suggestion ui test for #91520Fixes#91520
I tried to also make it a .fixed test, but I failed to accomplish that.
That's because of the 'consider annotating `Inner<T>` with `#[derive(Clone)]`' suggestion does not compile (conflicting Clone implementations), and I can't isolate them with `rustfix-only-machine-applicable` as both suggestions are not marked as `MachineApplicable`.
Instead I just test that the where clause suggestion is applied to the correct line.
Clean UI tests 2 of n
Modified 4 tests in tests/ui. Cleaned 3 and deleted one.
I have a final commit changing the values in `src/tools/tidy/src/ui_tests.rs`.
I wasn't sure if it was best practice to change this value as you go along or
once at the end. I can rebase to something that incrementally changes the value
in the "cleaned" commits if that is preferred.
Related Issues:
#73494#133895
r? jieyouxu
jsondocck: Replace `jsonpath_lib` with `jsonpath-rust`
The current jsonpath implementation we use isn't spec-compliant, and is buggy. See https://github.com/freestrings/jsonpath/issues/91
To solve it, it's replaced with https://github.com/besok/jsonpath-rust. This is spec-compiant, and doesn't have a really awkward bug we need to always dance around.
Unfortunately, this requires rewriting almost every test, as the behaviour of `[?(```@`,``` which is *extremely* common was changed. (But the new behaviour makes way more sense, and isn't buggy with tripply nested selectors)
Unblocks #110406. Makes #100515 much easier as we don't need to explain the broken JSONPath implementation
Best reviewed commit-by-commit. The first does the replacement. The next two rewrite the test-suite mechanically. The last rewrites the test-suite by hand.
r? ```@GuillaumeGomez```
Reduce FormattingOptions to 64 bits
This is part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99012
This reduces FormattingOptions from 6-7 machine words (384 bits on 64-bit platforms, 224 bits on 32-bit platforms) to just 64 bits (a single register on 64-bit platforms).
Before:
```rust
pub struct FormattingOptions {
flags: u32, // only 6 bits used
fill: char,
align: Option<Alignment>,
width: Option<usize>,
precision: Option<usize>,
}
```
After:
```rust
pub struct FormattingOptions {
/// Bits:
/// - 0-20: fill character (21 bits, a full `char`)
/// - 21: `+` flag
/// - 22: `-` flag
/// - 23: `#` flag
/// - 24: `0` flag
/// - 25: `x?` flag
/// - 26: `X?` flag
/// - 27: Width flag (if set, the width field below is used)
/// - 28: Precision flag (if set, the precision field below is used)
/// - 29-30: Alignment (0: Left, 1: Right, 2: Center, 3: Unknown)
/// - 31: Always set to 1
flags: u32,
/// Width if width flag above is set. Otherwise, always 0.
width: u16,
/// Precision if precision flag above is set. Otherwise, always 0.
precision: u16,
}
```
An assignment such as
(a, b) = (b, c);
desugars to the HIR
{ let (lhs, lhs) = (b, c); a = lhs; b = lhs; };
The repeated `lhs` leads to multiple Locals assigned to the same DILocalVariable. Rather than
attempting to fix that, get rid of the debug info for these bindings that don't even exist
in the program to begin with.
Fixes#138198
Use explicit cpu in some asm and codegen tests.
Some tests expect to be compiled for a specific CPU or require certain target features to be present (or absent). These tests work fine with default CPUs but fail in downstream builds for RHEL and Fedora, where we use non-default CPUs such as z13 on s390x, pwr9 on ppc64le, or x86-64-v2/x86-64-v3 on x86_64.
This is similar to #124597.
tests: accept some noise from LLVM 21 in symbols-all-mangled
I'm not entirely sure this is correct, but it doesn't feel obviously-wrong so I figured I'd just start by sending a PR rather than filing a bug and letting it linger.
``@rustbot`` label llvm-main
add `naked_functions_target_feature` unstable feature
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138568
tagging https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134213https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
This PR puts `#[target_feature(/* ... */)]` on `#[naked]` functions behind its own feature gate, so that naked functions can be stabilized. It turns out that supporting `target_feature` on naked functions is tricky on some targets, so we're splitting it out to not block stabilization of naked functions themselves. See the tracking issue for more information and workarounds.
Note that at the time of writing, the `target_features` attribute is ignored when generating code for naked functions.
r? ``@Amanieu``
Fix the "used_with_archive" test on Fuchsia
This change adds Fuchsia OS as a target to the cfg_attr in the pre_main_constructor external declaration. This allows the "tests/ui/attributes/used_with_archive.rs" to pass against Fuchsia.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #138435 (Add support for postfix yield expressions)
- #138685 (Use `Option<Ident>` for lowered param names.)
- #138700 (Suggest `-Whelp` when pass `--print lints` to rustc)
- #138727 (Do not rely on `type_var_origin` in `OrphanCheckErr::NonLocalInputType`)
- #138729 (Clean up `FnCtxt::resolve_coroutine_interiors`)
- #138731 (coverage: Add LLVM plumbing for expansion regions)
- #138732 (Use `def_path_str` for def id arg in `UnsupportedOpInfo`)
- #138735 (Remove `llvm` and `llvms` triagebot ping aliases for `icebreakers-llvm` ping group)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
expand: Leave traces when expanding `cfg_attr` attributes
Currently `cfg_trace` just disappears during expansion, but after this PR `#[cfg_attr(some tokens)]` will leave a `#[cfg_attr_trace(some tokens)]` attribute instead of itself in AST after expansion (the new attribute is built-in and inert, its inner tokens are the same as in the original attribute).
This trace attribute can then be used by lints or other diagnostics, #133823 has some examples.
Tokens in these trace attributes are set to an empty token stream, so the traces are non-existent for proc macros and cannot affect any user-observable behavior.
This is also a weakness, because if a proc macro processes some code with the trace attributes, they will be lost, so the traces are best effort rather than precise.
The next step is to do the same thing with `cfg` attributes (`#[cfg(TRUE)]` currently remains in both AST and tokens after expanding, it should be replaced with a trace instead).
The idea belongs to `@estebank.`
This change adds Fuchsia OS as a target to the cfg_attr in the
pre_main_constructor external declaration. This allows the
"tests/ui/attributes/used_with_archive.rs" to pass against Fuchsia.
I'm not entirely sure this is correct, but it doesn't feel
obviously-wrong so I figured I'd just start by sending a PR rather than
filing a bug and letting it linger.
@rustbot label llvm-main
Use `def_path_str` for def id arg in `UnsupportedOpInfo`
We could alternatively just omit the def path from the label, but I think it's fine to keep around
Fixes#138730
Do not rely on `type_var_origin` in `OrphanCheckErr::NonLocalInputType`
The ordering of ty var unification means that we may end up with a root variable whose ty var origin is from another item's params.
Let's not rely on this by just unifying the infer vars with the params of the impl + resolving. It's kinda goofy but it's clearer IMO.
Fixes#132826.
r? `@fmease` or `@lcnr`
Add support for postfix yield expressions
We've been having a discussion about whether we want postfix yield, or want to stick with prefix yield, or have both. I figured it's easy enough to support both for now and let us play around with them while the feature is still experimental.
This PR treats `yield x` and `x.yield` as semantically equivalent. There was a suggestion to make `yield x` have a `()` type (so it only works in coroutines with `Resume = ()`. I think that'd be worth trying, either in a later PR, or before this one merges, depending on people's opinions.
#43122
Consider fields to be inhabited if they are unstable
Fixes#133885 with a simple heuristic
r? Nadrieril
Not totally certain if this needs T-lang approval or a crater run.
Some tests expect to be compiled for a specific CPU or require certain
target features to be present (or absent). These tests work fine with
default CPUs but fail in downstream builds for RHEL and Fedora, where
we use non-default CPUs such as z13 on s390x, pwr9 on ppc64le, or
x86-64-v2/x86-64-v3 on x86_64.
The channel-stack-overflow-issue-102246 regression test fails on
platforms with a small default stack size (e.g. Fuchsia, with a default
of 256KiB). Update the test to specify an exact stack size for both the
sender and receiver operations, to ensure it is platform agnostic.
Set the stack size to less than the total allocation size of the mpsc
channel, to continue to prove that the allocation is on the heap.
Remove E0773 "A builtin-macro was defined more than once."
Error E0773 "A builtin-macro was defined more than once" is triggered when using the same `#[rustc_builtin_macro(..)]` twice. However, it can only be triggered in unstable code (using a `rustc_` attribute), and there doesn't seem to be any harm in using the same implementation from `compiler/rustc_builtin_macros/…` for multiple macro definitions.
By changing the Box to an Arc in `SyntaxExtensionKind`, we can throw away the `BuiltinMacroState::{NotYetSeen, AlreadySeen}` logic, simplifying things.
Fix next solver handling of shallow trait impl check
I'm trying to remove unnecessary direct calls to `select`, and this one seemed like a good place to start 😆
r? `@compiler-errors` or `@lcnr`
If a label is placed on the block of a loop instead of the header, suggest moving it to the header.
Fixes#138585
If a label is placed on the block of a loop instead of the header, suggest to the user moving it to the loop header instead of ~~suggesting to remove it~~ emitting a tool-only suggestion to remove it.
```rs
fn main() {
loop 'a: { return; }
}
```
```diff
error: block label not supported here
--> src/main.rs:2:10
|
2 | loop 'a: { return; }
| ^^^ not supported here
+ |
+help: if you meant to label the loop, move this label before the loop
+ |
+2 - loop 'a: { return; }
+2 + 'a: loop { return; }
+ |
```
Questions for reviewer:
* The "desired output" in the linked issue had the main diagnostic be "misplaced loop label". Should the main diagnostic message the changed instead of leaving it as "block label not supported here"?
* Should this be `Applicability::MachineApplicable`?
mir_build: consider privacy when checking for irrefutable patterns
This PR fixes#137999.
Note that, since this makes the compiler reject code that was previously accepted, it will probably need a crater run.
I include a commit that factors out a common code pattern into a helper function, purely because the fact that this was repeated all over the place was bothering me. Let me know if I should split that into a separate PR instead.
