Format all the let-chains in compiler crates
Since rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 has landed, soon we will have support for formatting let-chains (as soon as rustfmt syncs and beta gets bumped).
This PR applies the changes [from master rustfmt to rust-lang/rust eagerly](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/122651-general/topic/out.20formatting.20of.20prs/near/374997516), so that the next beta bump does not have to deal with a 200+ file diff and can remain concerned with other things like `cfg(bootstrap)` -- #113637 was a pain to land, for example, because of let-else.
I will also add this commit to the ignore list after it has landed.
The commands that were run -- I'm not great at bash-foo, but this applies rustfmt to every compiler crate, and then reverts the two crates that should probably be formatted out-of-tree.
```
~/rustfmt $ ls -1d ~/rust/compiler/* | xargs -I@ cargo run --bin rustfmt -- `@/src/lib.rs` --config-path ~/rust --edition=2021 # format all of the compiler crates
~/rust $ git checkout HEAD -- compiler/rustc_codegen_{gcc,cranelift} # revert changes to cg-gcc and cg-clif
```
cc `@rust-lang/rustfmt`
r? `@WaffleLapkin` or `@Nilstrieb` who said they may be able to review this purely mechanical PR :>
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` and `@petrochenkov,` who had some thoughts on the order of operations with big formatting changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95262#issue-1178993801. I think the situation has changed since then, given that let-chains support exists on master rustfmt now, and I'm fairly confident that this formatting PR should land even if *bootstrap* rustfmt doesn't yet format let-chains in order to lessen the burden of the next beta bump.
Adjust UI tests for `unit_bindings` lint
- Explicitly annotate `let x: () = expr;` where `x` has unit type, or remove the unit binding to leave only `expr;` instead.
- Use `let () = init;` or `let pat = ();` where appropriate.
- Fix disjoint-capture-in-same-closure test which wasn't actually testing a closure: `tests/ui/closures/2229_closure_analysis/run_pass/disjoint-capture-in-same-closure.rs`.
Note that unfortunately there's *a lot* of UI tests, there are a couple of places where I may have left something like `let (): ()` (this is not needed but is left over from an ealier version of the lint) which is bad style.
This PR is to help with the `unit_bindings` lint at #112380.
- Either explicitly annotate `let x: () = expr;` where `x` has unit
type, or remove the unit binding to leave only `expr;` instead.
- Fix disjoint-capture-in-same-closure test
correctly recurse when expanding anon consts
recursing with `super_fold_with` is wrong in case `bac` is itself normalizable, the test that was supposed to test for this being wrong did not actually test for this in reality because of the usage of `{ (N) }` instead of `{{ N }}`. The former resulting in a simple `ConstKind::Param` instead of `ConstKind::Unevaluated`. Tbh generally this test seems very brittle and it will be a lot easier to test once we have normalization of assoc consts since then we can just test that `T::ASSOC` normalizes to some `U::OTHER` which normalizes to some third thing.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Consider `tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr`,
the error message where it gives additional notes about where the associated
type is defined, and how the dead code lint doesn't have an article,
like in `tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr`. They don't have
articles, so it seems unnecessary to have one here.
Modify primary span label for E0308
Looking at the reactions to https://hachyderm.io/`@ekuber/109622160673605438,` a lot of people seem to have trouble understanding the current output, where the primary span label on type errors talks about the specific types that diverged, but these can be deeply nested type parameters. Because of that we could see "expected i32, found u32" in the label while the note said "expected Vec<i32>, found Vec<u32>". This understandably confuses people. I believe that once people learn to read these errors it starts to make more sense, but this PR changes the output to be more in line with what people might expect, without sacrificing terseness.
Fix#68220.
