Add error message suggestion for missing noreturn in naked function
I had to google the syntax for inline asm's `noreturn` option when I got this error earlier today, so I figured I'd save others the trouble and add the syntax/fix as a suggestion in the error.
Handle rustc_const_stable attribute in library feature collector
The library feature collector in [compiler/rustc_passes/src/lib_features.rs](551b4fa395/compiler/rustc_passes/src/lib_features.rs) has only been looking at `#[stable(…)]`, `#[unstable(…)]`, and `#[rustc_const_unstable(…)]` attributes, while ignoring `#[rustc_const_stable(…)]`. The consequences of this were:
- When any const feature got stabilized (changing one or more `rustc_const_unstable` to `rustc_const_stable`), users who had previously enabled that unstable feature using `#![feature(…)]` would get told "unknown feature", rather than rustc's nicer "the feature … has been stable since … and no longer requires an attribute to enable".
This can be seen in the way that https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93957#issuecomment-1079794660 failed after rebase:
```console
error[E0635]: unknown feature `const_ptr_offset`
--> $DIR/offset_from_ub.rs:1:35
|
LL | #![feature(const_ptr_offset_from, const_ptr_offset)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
- We weren't enforcing that a particular feature is either stable everywhere or unstable everywhere, and that a feature that has been stabilized has the same stabilization version everywhere, both of which we enforce for the other stability attributes.
This PR updates the library feature collector to handle `rustc_const_stable`, and fixes places in the standard library and test suite where `rustc_const_stable` was being used in a way that does not meet the rules for a stability attribute.
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #95032 (Clean up, categorize and sort unstable features in std.)
- #95260 (Better suggestions for `Fn`-family trait selection errors)
- #95293 (suggest wrapping single-expr blocks in square brackets)
- #95344 (Make `impl Debug for rustdoc::clean::Item` easier to read)
- #95388 (interpret: make isize::MAX the limit for dynamic value sizes)
- #95530 (rustdoc: do not show primitives and keywords as private)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
interpret: make isize::MAX the limit for dynamic value sizes
We are currently enforcing `data_layout.obj_size_bound()` as the maximal dynamic size of a Rust value (including for `size_of_val_raw`), but that does not match the docs.
In particular, Miri currently falsely says that this code has UB:
```rust
#![feature(layout_for_ptr)]
fn main() {
let size = isize::MAX as usize;
// Creating a raw slice of size isize::MAX and asking for its size is okay.
let s = std::ptr::slice_from_raw_parts(1usize as *const u8, size);
assert_eq!(size, unsafe { std::mem::size_of_val_raw(s) });
}
```
Better suggestions for `Fn`-family trait selection errors
1. Suppress suggestions to add `std::ops::Fn{,Mut,Once}` bounds when a type already implements `Fn{,Mut,Once}`
2. Add a note that points out that a type does in fact implement `Fn{,Mut,Once}`, but the arguments vary (either by number or by actual arguments)
3. Add a note that points out that a type does in fact implement `Fn{,Mut,Once}`, but not the right one (e.g. implements `FnMut`, but `Fn` is required).
Fixes#95147
A more robust solution to finding where to place use suggestions was added.
The algorithm uses the AST to find the span for the suggestion so we pass this span
down to the HIR during lowering and use it.
Signed-off-by: Miguel Guarniz <mi9uel9@gmail.com>
Specialize infinite-type "insert some indirection" suggestion for Option
Suggest `Option<Box<_>>` instead of `Box<Option<_>>` for infinitely-recursive members of a struct.
Not sure if I can get the span of the generic subty of the Option so I can make this a `+++`-style suggestion. The current output is a tiny bit less fancy looking than the original suggestion.
Should I limit the specialization to just `Option<Box<TheOuterStruct>>`? Because right now it applies to all `Option` members in the struct that are returned by `Representability::SelfRecursive`.
Fixes#91402
r? `@estebank`
(since you wrote the original suggestion and are definitely most familiar with it!)
Make lowering pull-based
~Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90451~
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/88186
The current lowering code visits all the item-likes in the AST in order, and lowers them one by one.
This PR changes it to index the AST and then proceed to lowering on-demand. This is closer to the logic of query-based lowering.
