This restriction made sense back when spaces separated function
parameters, but now that they separate path components, there's
no real ambiguity any more.
Additionally, the Rust language allows it.
ConstProp: Correctly remove const if unknown value assigned to it.
Closes#118328
The problematic sequence of MIR is:
```rust
_1 = const 0_usize;
_1 = const _; // This is an associated constant we can't know before monomorphization.
_0 = _1;
```
1. When `ConstProp::visit_assign` happens on `_1 = const 0_usize;`, it records that `0x0usize` is the value for `_1`.
2. Next `visit_assign` happens on `_1 = const _;`. Because the rvalue `.has_param()`, it can't be const evaled.
3. Finaly, `visit_assign` happens on `_0 = _1;`. Here it would think the value of `_1` was `0x0usize` from step 1.
The solution is to remove consts when checking the RValue fails, as they may have contained values that should now be invalidated, as that local was overwritten.
This should probably be back-ported to beta. Stable is more iffy, as it's gone unidentified since 1.70, so I only think it's worthwhile if there's another reason for a 1.74.1 release anyway.
Suggest `let` or `==` on typo'd let-chain
When encountering a bare assignment in a let-chain, suggest turning the
assignment into a `let` expression or an equality check.
```
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/bad-if-let-suggestion.rs:5:8
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i = 2 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
help: you might have meant to continue the let-chain
|
LL | if let x = 1 && let i = 2 {}
| +++
help: you might have meant to compare for equality
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i == 2 {}
| +
```
Add `never_patterns` feature gate
This PR adds the feature gate and most basic parsing for the experimental `never_patterns` feature. See the tracking issue (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118155) for details on the experiment.
`@scottmcm` has agreed to be my lang-team liaison for this experiment.
Fix coroutine validation for mixed panic strategy
Validation introduced in #113124 allows `UnwindAction::Continue` and `TerminatorKind::Resume` to occur only in functions with ABI that can unwind. The function ABI depends on the panic strategy, which can vary across crates.
Usually MIR is built and validated in the same crate. The coroutine drop glue thus far was an exception. As a result validation could fail when mixing different panic strategies.
Avoid the problem by executing `AbortUnwindingCalls` along with the validation.
Fixes#116953.
Eagerly return `ExprKind::Err` on `yield`/`await` in wrong coroutine context
This PR does 2 things:
1. Refuses to lower `.await` or `yield` when we are outside of the right coroutine context for the operator. Instead, we lower to `hir::ExprKind::Err`, to silence subsequent redundant errors.
2. Reworks a bit of the span tracking in `LoweringContext` to fix a bad span when we have something like `let x = [0; async_fn().await]` where the `await` is inside of an anon const. The span for the "item" still kinda sucks, since it overlaps with the `await` span, but at least it's accurate.
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #118193 (Add missing period in `std::process::Command` docs)
- #118222 (unify read_to_end and io::copy impls for reading into a Vec)
- #118323 (give dev-friendly error message for incorrect config profiles)
- #118378 (Perform LTO optimisations with wasm-ld + -Clinker-plugin-lto)
- #118399 (Clean dead codes in miri)
- #118410 (update test for new LLVM 18 codegen)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Validation introduced in #113124 allows UnwindAction::Continue and
TerminatorKind::Resume to occur only in functions with ABI that can
unwind. The function ABI depends on the panic strategy, which can vary
across crates.
Usually MIR is built and validated in the same crate. The coroutine drop
glue thus far was an exception. As a result validation could fail when
mixing different panic strategies.
Avoid the problem by executing AbortUnwindingCalls along with the
validation.
When encountering a bare assignment in a let-chain, suggest turning the
assignment into a `let` expression or an equality check.
```
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/bad-if-let-suggestion.rs:5:8
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i = 2 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
help: you might have meant to continue the let-chain
|
LL | if let x = 1 && let i = 2 {}
| +++
help: you might have meant to compare for equality
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i == 2 {}
| +
```
effects: Run `enforce_context_effects` for all method calls
So that we also perform checks when overloaded `PartialEq`s are called.
r? `@compiler-errors`
rustc_span: Use correct edit distance start length for suggestions
Otherwise the suggestions can be off-base for non-ASCII identifiers. For example suggesting that `Ok` is a name similar to `读文`.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/72553.
Added linker_arg(s) Linker trait methods for link-arg to be prefixed "-Wl," for cc-like linker args and not verbatim
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99427#issuecomment-1234443468
> here's one possible improvement to -l link-arg making it more portable between linkers and useful - befriending it with the verbatim modifier (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99425).
>
> -l link-arg:-verbatim=-foo would add -Wl,-foo (or equivalent) when C compiler is used as a linker, and just -foo when bare linker is used.
> -l link-arg:+verbatim=-bar on the other hand would always pass just -bar.
Account for `!` arm in tail `match` expr
On functions with a default return type that influences the coerced type of `match` arms, check if the failing arm is actually of type `!`. If so, suggest changing the return type so the coercion against the prior arms is successful.
```
error[E0308]: `match` arms have incompatible types
--> $DIR/match-tail-expr-never-type-error.rs:9:13
|
LL | fn bar(a: bool) {
| - help: try adding a return type: `-> i32`
LL | / match a {
LL | | true => 1,
| | - this is found to be of type `{integer}`
LL | | false => {
LL | | never()
| | ^^^^^^^
| | |
| | expected integer, found `()`
| | this expression is of type `!`, but it get's coerced to `()` due to its surrounding expression
LL | | }
LL | | }
| |_____- `match` arms have incompatible types
```
Fix#24157.
Do not erase late bound regions when selecting inherent associated types
In the fix for #97156 we would want the following code:
```rust
#![feature(inherent_associated_types)]
#![allow(incomplete_features)]
struct Foo<T>(T);
impl Foo<fn(&'static ())> {
type Assoc = u32;
}
trait Other {}
impl Other for u32 {}
// FIXME(inherent_associated_types): Avoid emitting two diagnostics (they only differ in span).
// FIXME(inherent_associated_types): Enhancement: Spruce up the diagnostic by saying something like
// "implementation is not general enough" as is done for traits via
// `try_report_trait_placeholder_mismatch`.
fn bar(_: Foo<for<'a> fn(&'a ())>::Assoc) {}
//~^ ERROR mismatched types
//~| ERROR mismatched types
fn main() {}
```
to fail with ...
```
error[E0220]: associated type `Assoc` not found for `Foo<for<'a> fn(&'a ())>` in the current scope
--> tests/ui/associated-inherent-types/issue-109789.rs:18:36
|
4 | struct Foo<T>(T);
| ------------- associated item `Assoc` not found for this struct
...
18 | fn bar(_: Foo<for<'a> fn(&'a ())>::Assoc) {}
| ^^^^^ associated item not found in `Foo<for<'a> fn(&'a ())>`
|
= note: the associated type was found for
- `Foo<fn(&'static ())>`
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0220`.
```
This PR fixes the ICE we are currently getting "was a subtype of Foo<Binder(fn(&ReStatic ()), [])> during selection but now it is not"
Also fixes#112631
r? `@lcnr`
On functions with a default return type that influences the coerced type
of `match` arms, check if the failing arm is actually of type `!`. If
so, suggest changing the return type so the coercion against the prior
arms is successful.
```
error[E0308]: `match` arms have incompatible types
--> $DIR/match-tail-expr-never-type-error.rs:9:13
|
LL | fn bar(a: bool) {
| - help: try adding a return type: `-> i32`
LL | / match a {
LL | | true => 1,
| | - this is found to be of type `{integer}`
LL | | false => {
LL | | never()
| | ^^^^^^^
| | |
| | expected integer, found `()`
| | this expression is of type `!`, but it get's coerced to `()` due to its surrounding expression
LL | | }
LL | | }
| |_____- `match` arms have incompatible types
```
Fix#24157.
Suggest swapping the order of `ref` and `box`
It is not valid grammar to write `ref box <ident>` in patterns, but `box ref <ident>` is.
This patch adds a diagnostic to suggest swapping them, analogous to what we do for `mut let`.
