Split implied and super predicate queries, then allow elaborator to filter only supertraits
Split the `super_predicates_of` query into a new `implied_predicates_of` query. The former now only returns the *real* supertraits of a trait alias, and the latter now returns the implied predicates (which include all of the `where` clauses of the trait alias). The behavior of these queries is identical for regular traits.
Now that the two queries are split, we can add a new filter method to the elaborator, `filter_only_self()`, which can be used in instances that we need only the *supertrait* predicates, such as during the elaboration used in closure signature deduction. This toggles the usage of `super_predicates_of` instead of `implied_predicates_of` during elaboration of a trait predicate.
This supersedes #104745, and fixes the four independent bugs identified in that PR.
Fixes#104719Fixes#106238Fixes#110023Fixes#109514
r? types
Support safe transmute in new solver
Basically copies the same implementation as the old solver, but instead of looking for param types, we look for type or const placeholders.
Rename tests/ui/unique to tests/ui/box/unit
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/109878
Since tests/ui/box already exists, I have temporarily named it boxed-box, but if another name sounds better, please let me know.
Initial support for loongarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
Hi, We hope to add a new port in rust for LoongArch.
LoongArch intro
LoongArch is a RISC style ISA which is independently designed by Loongson
Technology in China. It is divided into two versions, the 32-bit version (LA32)
and the 64-bit version (LA64). LA64 applications have application-level
backward binary compatibility with LA32 applications. LoongArch is composed of
a basic part (Loongson Base) and an expanded part. The expansion part includes
Loongson Binary Translation (LBT), Loongson VirtualiZation (LVZ), Loongson SIMD
EXtension (LSX) and Loongson Advanced SIMD EXtension(LASX).
Currently the LA464 processor core supports LoongArch ISA and the Loongson
3A5000 processor integrates 4 64-bit LA464 cores. LA464 is a four-issue 64-bit
high-performance processor core. It can be used as a single core for high-end
embedded and desktop applications, or as a basic processor core to form an
on-chip multi-core system for server and high-performance machine applications.
Documentations:
ISA:
https://loongson.github.io/LoongArch-Documentation/LoongArch-Vol1-EN.html
ABI:
https://loongson.github.io/LoongArch-Documentation/LoongArch-ELF-ABI-EN.html
More docs can be found at:
https://loongson.github.io/LoongArch-Documentation/README-EN.html
Since last year, we have locally adapted two versions of rust, rust1.41 and rust1.57, and completed the test locally.
I'm not sure if I'm submitting all the patches at once, so I split up the patches and here's one of the commits
Update browser-ui-test version
This update add the support for expressions, so we can now do this:
```
assert: 1 > 2 && ["a"] != ["b", "c"]
```
It also improved commands naming and updated puppeteer version.
r? `@notriddle`
Migrate most of `rustc_builtin_macros` to diagnostic impls
cc #100717
This is a couple of days work, but I decided to stop for now before the PR becomes too big. There's around 50 unresolved failures when `rustc::untranslatable_diagnostic` is denied, which I'll finish addressing once this PR goes thtough
A couple of outputs have changed, but in all instances I think the changes are an improvement/are more consistent with other diagnostics (although I'm happy to revert any which seem worse)
rustc_metadata: Filter encoded data more aggressively using `DefKind`
I focused on data that contains spans, because spans are expensive to encode/decode/hash, but also touched `should_encode_visibility` too.
One incorrect use of impl visibility in diagnostics is also replaced with trait visibility.
These don't optimize with debug assertions. For one of them, this
is due to the new alignment checks, for the other I'm not sure
what specifically blocks it.
this test was added for rust 0.4 and doesn't test anything specific.
The repro originally relied on extern functions which are now just
ordinary methods. It's also a run pass test even though `main` has
been commented out.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #109527 (Set up standard library path substitution in rust-gdb and gdbgui)
- #109752 (Stall auto trait assembly in new solver for int/float vars)
- #109860 (Add support for RISC-V relax target feature)
- #109923 (Update `error [E0449]: unnecessary visibility qualifier` to be more clear)
- #110070 (The `wrapping_neg` example for unsigned types shouldn't use `i8`)
- #110146 (fix(doc): do not parse inline when output is json for external crate)
- #110147 (Add regression test for #104916)
- #110149 (Update books)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add regression test for #104916Closes#104916
I haven't tested if it still passes with debug assertions enabled so it'd be better to wait for CI to be green.
r? compiler-errors
Update `error [E0449]: unnecessary visibility qualifier` to be more clear
This updates the error message `error[E0449]: unnecessary visibility qualifier` by clearly indicating that visibility qualifiers already inherit their visibility from a parent item. The error message previously implied that the qualifiers were permitted, which is not the case anymore.
Resolves#109822.
We store argument indexes on VarDebugInfo. Unlike the previous method of
relying on the variable index to know whether a variable is an argument,
this survives MIR inlining.
We also no longer check if var.source_info.scope is the outermost scope.
When a function gets inlined, the arguments to the inner function will
no longer be in the outermost scope. What we care about though is
whether they were in the outermost scope prior to inlining, which we
know by whether we assigned an argument index.
Add suggestion to remove `derive()` if invoked macro is non-derive
Adds to the existing `expected derive macro, found {}` error message:
```
help: remove the surrounding "derive()":
--> $DIR/macro-path-prelude-fail-4.rs:1:3
|
LL | #[derive(inline)]
| ^^^^^^^ ^
```
This suggestion will either fix the issue, in the case that the macro was valid, or provide a better error message if not
Not ready for merge yet, as the highlighted span is only valid for trivial formatting. Is there a nice way to get the parent span of the macro path within `smart_resolve_macro_path`?
Closes#109589
Fix a couple ICEs in the new `CastKind::Transmute` code
Check the sizes of the immediates, rather than the overall types, when deciding whether we can convert types without going through memory.
Fixes#110005Fixes#109992Fixes#110032
cc `@matthiaskrgr`
Migrate remainder of rustc_ty_utils to `SessionDiagnostic`
This moves the remaining errors in `rust_ty_utils` to `SessionsDiagnostic`.
r? ``@davidtwco``
Instantiate instead of erasing binder when probing param methods
Fixes#108836
There is a really old comment saying that a `WhereClauseCandidate` probe candidate "should not contain any inference variables", but I'm not really confident that that comment applies anymore. In contrast, other candidates that we assemble during method probe contain inference variables in their substitutions (e.g. `InherentImplCandidate`)...
Since this change is made only to support a nightly feature, I'm happy to gate the new behavior behind this feature flag or discuss it further.
r? types
Better diagnostic when pattern matching tuple structs
Fixes#108284
When trying to pattern match a tuple struct we might get a flawed error message if there are missing fields. E.g.
```
let x = Foo(100, 200);
if let Foo { 0: bar } = x { ... }
```
Produces this error:
```
error[E0769]: tuple variant `Foo` written as struct variant
--> hello.rs:5:12
|
5 | if let Foo { 0: foo } = x {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: use the tuple variant pattern syntax instead
|
5 | if let Foo(_, _) = x {
| ~~~~~~
```
Which doesn't highlight that we can still use the struct syntax but we need to fill missing fields. This pr changes this error to:
```
error[E0027]: pattern does not mention field `1`
--> hello.rs:5:12
|
5 | if let Foo { 0: foo } = x {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ missing field `1`
|
help: include the missing field in the pattern
|
5 | if let Foo { 0: foo, 1: _ } = x {
| ~~~~~~~~
help: if you don't care about this missing field, you can explicitly ignore it
|
5 | if let Foo { 0: foo, .. } = x {
| ~~~~~~
```
