A couple of fixes for dataflow graphviz dumps
A couple of trivial drive-by fixes to issues I noticed while debugging my buggy borrowck code:
One is a fix of the `-Zdump-mir-dataflow` file extensions, the dataflow graphviz files are currently dumped as `..dot`.
<details>
```console
-rw-rw-r-- 1 lqd lqd 13051 Oct 1 23:21 mir_dump/issue_47680.main.-------.borrows.borrowck..dot
-rw-rw-r-- 1 lqd lqd 13383 Oct 1 23:21 mir_dump/issue_47680.main.-------.ever_init.borrowck..dot
-rw-rw-r-- 1 lqd lqd 13591 Oct 1 23:21 mir_dump/issue_47680.main.-------.maybe_init.borrowck..dot
-rw-rw-r-- 1 lqd lqd 9257 Oct 1 23:21 mir_dump/issue_47680.main.-------.maybe_init.elaborate_drops..dot
-rw-rw-r-- 1 lqd lqd 14086 Oct 1 23:21 mir_dump/issue_47680.main.-------.maybe_uninit.borrowck..dot
-rw-rw-r-- 1 lqd lqd 9257 Oct 1 23:21 mir_dump/issue_47680.main.-------.maybe_uninit.elaborate_drops..dot
```
<summary>Some examples on nightly</summary>
</details>
And the other is for the specific `Borrows` dataflow analysis, whose domain is loans but shows locations when dumped (the location where the loan is introduced). It's not a huge deal but we didn't even print these locations in MIR dumps, and in general cross-referencing loan data (like loan liveness) is more annoying without this change.
<details>
<summary>Here's how it'll look in case inquisitive minds want to know</summary>
</details>
The visualization state diff display is still suboptimal in loops for some of the effects escaping a block, e.g. a gen that's not dominated/postdominated by a kill will not show up in statement diffs. (This happens in the previous screenshot, there's no `+bw1` anywhere). We can fix that in the future.
panic when an interpreter error gets unintentionally discarded
One important invariant of Miri is that when an interpreter error is raised (*in particular* a UB error), those must not be discarded: it's not okay to just check `foo().is_err()` and then continue executing.
This seems to catch new contributors by surprise fairly regularly, so this PR tries to make it so that *if* this ever happens, we get a panic rather than a silent missed UB bug. The interpreter error type now contains a "guard" that panics on drop, and that is explicitly passed to `mem::forget` when an error is deliberately discarded.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/3855
Instantiate binders in `supertrait_vtable_slot`
`supertrait_vtable_slot` was previously using structural equality when probing for the vtable slot, which led to an ICE since we need a *subtype* match, not an exact match.
Fixes#131027
r? lcnr
Stabilize expr_2021 fragment specifier in all editions
This is part of the `expr`/`expr_2021` fragment specifier for Edition 2024 (#123742). The RFC says we can support expr_2021 in as many editions as is practical, and there's nothing particularly hard about supporting it all the way back to 2015.
In editions 2021 and earlier, `expr` and `expr_2021` are synonyms. Their behavior diverges starting in Edition 2024. This is checked by the `expr_2021_inline_const.rs` test.
cc `@vincenzopalazzo` `@rust-lang/wg-macros` `@traviscross`
rustdoc: rewrite stability inheritance as a doc pass
Since doc inlining can almost arbitrarily change the module hierarchy, we can't just use the HIR ancestors of an item to compute its effective stability. This PR moves the stability inheritance that I implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130798 into a new doc pass `propagate-stability` that runs after doc inlining and uses the post-inlining ancestors of an item to correctly compute its effective stability.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131020
r? `@notriddle`
Fix `adt_const_params` leaking `{type error}` in error msg
Fixes the confusing diagnostic described in #118179. (users would see `{type error}` in some situations, which is pretty weird)
`adt_const_params` tracking issue: #95174
Preserve brackets around if-lets and skip while-lets
r? `@jieyouxu`
Tracked by #124085
Fresh out of #129466, we have discovered 9 crates that the lint did not successfully migrate because the span of `if let` includes the surrounding brackets `(..)` like the following, which surprised me a bit.
```rust
if (if let .. { .. } else { .. }) {
// ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
// the span somehow includes the surrounding brackets
}
```
There is one crate that failed the migration because some suggestion spans cross the macro expansion boundaries. Surely there is no way to patch them with `match` rewrite. To handle this case, we will instead require all spans to be tested for admissibility as suggestion spans.
Besides, there are 4 false negative cases discovered with desugared-`while let`. We don't need to lint them, because the `else` branch surely contains exactly one statement because the drop order is not changed whatsoever in this case.
```rust
while let Some(value) = droppy().get() {
..
}
// is desugared into
loop {
if let Some(value) = droppy().get() {
..
} else {
break;
// here can be nothing observable in this block
}
}
```
I believe this is the one and only false positive that I have found. I think we have finally nailed all the corner cases this time.
Reject leading unsafe in `cfg!(...)` and `--check-cfg`
This PR reject leading unsafe in `cfg!(...)` and `--check-cfg`.
Fixes (after-backport) https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131055
r? `@jieyouxu`
