Properly track `ImplObligations`
Instead of probing for all possible `impl`s that could have caused an
`ImplObligation`, keep track of its `DefId` and obligation spans for
accurate error reporting.
Follow to #89580. Addresses #89418.
Before this fix, the debuginfo for the fields was generated from the
struct defintion of Box<T>, but (at least at the moment) the compiler
pretends that Box<T> is just a (fat) pointer, so the fields need to be
`pointer` and `vtable` instead of `__0: Unique<T>` and `__1: Allocator`.
This is meant as a temporary mitigation until we can make sure that
simply treating Box as a regular struct in debuginfo does not cause too
much breakage in the ecosystem.
`run-rustfix` applies all suggestions regardless of their Applicability.
There's a flag, `rustfix-only-machine-applicable`, that does what it
says, but then the produced `.fixed` file would have invalid code from
the suggestions that weren't applied. So, I moved the cases of postfix
increment, in which case multiple suggestions are given, to the
`-notfixed` test, which does not run rustfix.
I also changed the Applicability to Unspecified since MaybeIncorrect
requires that the code be valid, even if it's incorrect.
Instead of probing for all possible impls that could have caused an
`ImplObligation`, keep track of its `DefId` and obligation spans for
accurate error reporting.
Follow up to #89580. Addresses #89418.
Remove some unnecessary clones.
Tweak output for auto trait impl obligations.
This enhances documentation with these details and extends the validator to check these requirements
more thoroughly. As a part of this, we add a new `Deaggregated` phase, and rename other phases so
that their names more naturally correspond to what they represent.
interpret/memory: simplify check_and_deref_ptr
*Finally* I saw a way to make this code simpler. The odd preprocessing in `let ptr_or_addr =` has bothered me since forever, but it actually became unnecessary in the last provenance refactoring. :)
This also leads to slightly more explicit error messages as a nice side-effect. 🎉
r? `@oli-obk`
Better errors when a Copy impl on a Struct is not self-consistent
As discovered in a Zulip thread with `@nnethercote` and `@Mark-Simulacrum,` it's not immediately obvious why a field on an ADT doesn't implement `Copy`. This PR attempts to give slightly more detailed information by spinning up a fulfillment context to try to dig down and discover transitive fulfillment errors that cause `is_copy_modulo_regions` to fail on a ADT field.
The error message still kinda sucks, but should only show up in the case that an existing error message was totally missing... so I think it's a good compromise for now?
diagnostics: do not suggest `fn foo({ <body> }`
Instead of suggesting that the body always replace the last character on the line, presuming it must be a semicolon, the parser should instead check what the last character is, and append the body if it is anything else.
Fixes#83104
Rename `~const Drop` to `~const Destruct`
r? `@oli-obk`
Completely switching to `~const Destructible` would be rather complicated, so it seems best to add it for now and wait for it to be backported to beta in the next release.
The rationale is to prevent complications such as #92149 and #94803 by introducing an entirely new trait. And `~const Destructible` reads a bit better than `~const Drop`. Name Bikesheddable.
interpret/validity: improve clarity
I was confused by my own (ancient) comment in `validity.rs` so I figured I'd clarify. (And I don't think ZST-ness is relevant at all inside that branch, no idea where that comment comes from.)
Also `extend` seems more clear than `clone_from`.
Fold aarch64 feature +fp into +neon
Arm's FEAT_FP and Feat_AdvSIMD describe the same thing on AArch64:
The Neon unit, which handles both floating point and SIMD instructions.
Moreover, a configuration for AArch64 must include both or neither.
Arm says "entirely proprietary" toolchains may omit floating point:
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102374/0101/Data-processing---floating-point
In the Programmer's Guide for Armv8-A, Arm says AArch64 can have
both FP and Neon or neither in custom implementations:
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0024/a/AArch64-Floating-point-and-NEON
In "Bare metal boot code for Armv8-A", enabling Neon and FP
is just disabling the same trap flag:
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/dai0527/a
In an unlikely future where "Neon and FP" become unrelated,
we can add "[+-]fp" as its own feature flag.
Until then, we can simplify programming with Rust on AArch64 by
folding both into "[+-]neon", which is valid as it supersets both.
"[+-]neon" is retained for niche uses such as firmware, kernels,
"I just hate floats", and so on.
I am... pretty sure no one is relying on this.
An argument could be made that, as we are not an "entirely proprietary" toolchain, we should not support AArch64 without floats at all. I think that's a bit excessive. However, I want to recognize the intent: programming for AArch64 should be simplified where possible. For x86-64, programmers regularly set up illegal feature configurations because it's hard to understand them, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89586. And per the above notes, plus the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/86941, there should be no real use cases for leaving these features split: the two should in fact always go together.
- Fixesrust-lang/rust#95002.
- Fixesrust-lang/rust#95064.
- Fixesrust-lang/rust#95122.
