Eagerly translate `HelpUseLatestEdition` in parser diagnostics
Fixes#122130.
This makes me suspicious of these other two usage of `add_to_diagnostic()`. Would they *also* crash? I haven't attempted to construct test cases for them.
```
compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs
3453: errors::HelpUseLatestEdition::new().add_to_diagnostic(e);
compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/expr.rs
2603: HelpUseLatestEdition::new().add_to_diagnostic(&mut err);
```
This also seems like a footgun?
AST validation: Improve handling of inherent impls nested within functions and anon consts
Minimal fix for issue #121607 extracted from PR #120698 for ease of backporting and since I'd like to improve PR #120698 in such a way that it makes AST validator truly robust against such sort of regressions (AST validator is generally *beyond* footgun-y atm). The current version of PR #120698 sort of does that already but there's still room for improvement.
Fixes#89342.
Fixes [after beta-backport] #121607.
Partially addresses #119924 (#120698 aims to fully fix it).
---
### Explainer
The last commit of PR #119505 regressed issue #121607.
Previously we would reject visibilities on associated items with `visibility_not_permitted` if we were in a trait (by checking the parameter `ctxt` of `visit_assoc_item` which was 100% accurate) or if we were in a trait impl (by checking a flag called `in_trait_impl` tracked in `AstValidator` which was/is only accurate if the visitor methods correctly updated it which isn't actually the case giving rise to the old open issue #89342).
In PR #119505, I moved even more state into the `AstValidator` by generalizing the flag `in_trait_impl` to `trait_or_trait_impl` to be able to report more precise diagnostics (modeling *Trait | TraitImpl*). However since we/I didn't update `trait_or_trait_impl` in all places to reflect reality (similar to us not updating `in_trait_impl` before), this lead to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121607#issuecomment-1963084636 getting wrongfully rejected. Since PR #119505 we reject visibilities if the “globally tracked” (wrt. to `AstValidator`) `outer_trait_or_trait_impl` is `Some`.
Crucially, when visiting an inherent impl, I never reset `outer_trait_or_trait_impl` back to `None` leading us to believe that `bar` in the stack [`trait Foo` > `fn foo` > `impl Bar` > `pub fn bar`] (from the MCVE) was an inherent associated item (we saw `trait Foo` but not `impl Bar` before it).
The old open issue #89342 is caused by the aforementioned issue of us never updating `in_trait_impl` prior to my PR #119505 / `outer_trait_or_trait` after my PR. Stack: [`impl Default for Foo` > `{` > `impl Foo` > `pub const X`] (we only saw `impl Default for Foo` but not the `impl Foo` before it).
---
This PR is only meant to be a *hot fix*. I plan on completely *rewriting* `AstValidator` from the ground up to not rely on “globally tracked” state like this or at least make it close to impossible to forget updating it when descending into nested items (etc.). Other visitors do a way better job at that (e.g. AST lowering). I actually plan on experimenting with moving more and more logic from `AstValidator` into the AST lowering pass/stage/visitor to follow the [Parse, don't validate](https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-validate/) “pattern”.
---
r? `@compiler-errors`
Detect more cases of `=` to `:` typo
When a `Local` is fully parsed, but not followed by a `;`, keep the `:` span arround and mention it. If the type could continue being parsed as an expression, suggest replacing the `:` with a `=`.
```
error: expected one of `!`, `+`, `->`, `::`, `;`, or `=`, found `.`
--> file.rs:2:32
|
2 | let _: std::env::temp_dir().join("foo");
| - ^ expected one of `!`, `+`, `->`, `::`, `;`, or `=`
| |
| while parsing the type for `_`
| help: use `=` if you meant to assign
```
Fix#119665.
Add stubs in IR and ABI for `f16` and `f128`
This is the very first step toward the changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114607 and the [`f16` and `f128` RFC](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3453-f16-and-f128.html). It adds the types to `rustc_type_ir::FloatTy` and `rustc_abi::Primitive`, and just propagates those out as `unimplemented!` stubs where necessary.
These types do not parse yet so there is no feature gate, and it should be okay to use `unimplemented!`.
The next steps will probably be AST support with parsing and the feature gate.
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@Nilstrieb` suggested breaking the PR up in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120645#issuecomment-1925900572
When a `Local` is fully parsed, but not followed by a `;`, keep the `:` span
arround and mention it. If the type could continue being parsed as an
expression, suggest replacing the `:` with a `=`.
```
error: expected one of `!`, `+`, `->`, `::`, `;`, or `=`, found `.`
--> file.rs:2:32
|
2 | let _: std::env::temp_dir().join("foo");
| - ^ expected one of `!`, `+`, `->`, `::`, `;`, or `=`
| |
| while parsing the type for `_`
| help: use `=` if you meant to assign
```
Fix#119665.
- Put every literal in its own braces, rather than just some of them,
for maximal error recovery.
- Add a blank line between every case, for readability.
Fix OutsideLoop's error suggestion: adding label `'block` for `if` block.
For OutsideLoop we should not suggest add `'block` label in `if` block, or we wiil get another err: block label not supported here.
fixes#123261
Disallow cast with trailing braced macro in let-else
This fixes an edge case I noticed while porting #118880 and #119062 to syn.
Previously, rustc incorrectly accepted code such as:
```rust
let foo = &std::ptr::null as &'static dyn std::ops::Fn() -> *const primitive! {
8
} else {
return;
};
```
even though a right curl brace `}` directly before `else` in a `let...else` statement is not supposed to be valid syntax.
The change to the test is a little goofy because the compiler was
guessing "correctly" before that `falsy! {}` is the condition as opposed
to the else body. But I believe this change is fundamentally correct.
Braced macro invocations in statement position are most often item-like
(`thread_local! {...}`) as opposed to parenthesized macro invocations
which are condition-like (`cfg!(...)`).
Make sure we consume a generic arg when checking mistyped turbofish
When recovering un-turbofish-ed args in expr position (e.g. `let x = a<T, U>();` in `check_mistyped_turbofish_with_multiple_type_params`, we used `parse_seq_to_before_end` to parse the fake generic args; however, it used `parse_generic_arg` which *optionally* parses a generic arg. If it doesn't end up parsing an arg, it returns `Ok(None)` and consumes no tokens. If we don't find a delimiter after this (`,`), we try parsing *another* element. In this case, we just infinitely loop looking for a subsequent element.
We can fix this by making sure that we either parse a generic arg or error in `parse_seq_to_before_end`'s callback.
Fixes#124897
Disallow ambiguous attributes on expressions
This implements the suggestion in [#15701](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701#issuecomment-2033124217) to disallow ambiguous outer attributes on expressions. This should resolve one of the concerns blocking the stabilization of `stmt_expr_attributes`.
Improve handling of expr->field errors
The current message for "`->` used for field access" is the following:
```rust
error: expected one of `!`, `.`, `::`, `;`, `?`, `{`, `}`, or an operator, found `->`
--> src/main.rs:2:6
|
2 | a->b;
| ^^ expected one of 8 possible tokens
```
([playground link](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=7f8b6f4433aa7866124123575456f54e))
This PR tries to address this by adding a dedicated error message and recovery. The proposed error message is:
```
error: `->` used for field access or method call
--> ./tiny_test.rs:2:6
|
2 | a->b;
| ^^ help: try using `.` instead
|
= help: the `.` operator will dereference the value if needed
```
(feel free to bikeshed it as much as necessary)
The current message for "`->` used for field access" is the following:
```rust
error: expected one of `!`, `.`, `::`, `;`, `?`, `{`, `}`, or an operator, found `->`
--> src/main.rs:2:6
|
2 | a->b;
| ^^ expected one of 8 possible tokens
```
(playground link[1])
This PR tries to address this by adding a dedicated error message and recovery. The proposed error message is:
```
error: `->` used for field access or method call
--> ./tiny_test.rs:2:6
|
2 | a->b;
| ^^ help: try using `.` instead
|
= help: the `.` operator will dereference the value if needed
```
(feel free to bikeshed it as much as necessary)
[1]: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=7f8b6f4433aa7866124123575456f54e
Signed-off-by: Sasha Pourcelot <sasha.pourcelot@protonmail.com>
