make unsupported_calling_conventions a hard error
This has been a future-compat lint (not shown in dependencies) since Rust 1.55, released 3 years ago. Hopefully that was enough time so this can be made a hard error now. Given that long timeframe, I think it's justified to skip the "show in dependencies" stage. There were [not many crates hitting this](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86231#issuecomment-866300943) even when the lint was originally added.
This should get cratered, and I assume then it needs a t-compiler FCP. (t-compiler because this looks entirely like an implementation oversight -- for the vast majority of ABIs, we already have a hard error, but some were initially missed, and we are finally fixing that.)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87678
Check ABI target compatibility for function pointers
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130260
Related tracking issue: #87678
Compatibility of an ABI for a target was previously only performed on function definitions and `extern` blocks. This PR adds it also to function pointers to be consistent.
This might have broken some of the `tests/ui/` depending on the platform, so a try run seems like a good idea.
Also this might break existing code, because we now emit extra errors. Does this require a crater run?
# Example
```rust
// build with: --target=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
// These raise E0570
extern "thiscall" fn foo() {}
extern "thiscall" { fn bar() }
// This did not raise any error
fn baz(f: extern "thiscall" fn()) { f() }
```
# Open Questions
* [x] Should this report a future incompatibility warning like #87678 ?
* [ ] Is this the best place to perform the check?
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
[perf] Delay the construction of early lint diag structs
Attacks some of the perf regressions from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124417#issuecomment-2123700666.
See individual commits for details. The first three commits are not strictly necessary.
However, the 2nd one (06bc4fc671, *Remove `LintDiagnostic::msg`*) makes the main change way nicer to implement.
It's also pretty sweet on its own if I may say so myself.
* instead simply set the primary message inside the lint decorator functions
* it used to be this way before [#]101986 which introduced `msg` to prevent
good path delayed bugs (which no longer exist) from firing under certain
circumstances when lints were suppressed / silenced
* this is no longer necessary for various reasons I presume
* it shaves off complexity and makes further changes easier to implement
Do `check_coroutine_obligations` once per typeck root
We only need to do `check_coroutine_obligations` once per typeck root, especially since the new solver can't really (easily) associate which obligations correspond to which coroutines.
This requires us to move the checks for sized coroutine fields into `mir_coroutine_witnesses`, but that's fine imo.
r? lcnr
