Cleanup: Replace item names referencing GitHub issues or error codes with something more meaningful
**lcnr** in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117164#pullrequestreview-1969935387:
> […] while I know that there's precendent to name things `Issue69420`, I really dislike this as it requires looking up the issue to figure out the purpose of such a variant. Actually referring to the underlying issue, e.g. `AliasMayNormToUncovered` or whatever and then linking to the issue in a doc comment feels a lot more desirable to me. We should ideally rename all the functions and enums which currently use issue numbers.
I've grepped through `compiler/` like crazy and think that I've found all instances of this pattern.
However, I haven't renamed `compute_2229_migrations_*`. Should I?
The first commit introduces an abhorrent and super long name for an item because naming is hard but also scary looking / unwelcoming names are good for things related to temporary-ish backcompat hacks. I'll let you discover it by yourself.
Contains a bit of drive-by cleanup and a diag migration bc that was the simplest option.
r? lcnr or compiler
Lazily normalize inside trait ref during orphan check & consider ty params in rigid alias types to be uncovered
Fixes#99554, fixesrust-lang/types-team#104.
Fixes#114061.
Supersedes #100555.
Tracking issue for the future compatibility lint: #124559.
r? lcnr
Add test for issue 106269
Closes#106269
Made this an assembly test as the LLVM codegen is still quite verbose and doesn't really indicate the behaviour we want
Port repr128-dwarf run-make test to rmake
This PR ports the repr128-dwarf run-make test to rmake, using the `gimli` crate instead of the `llvm-dwarfdump` command.
Note that this PR changes `rmake.rs` files to be compiled with the 2021 edition (previously no edition was passed to `rustc`, meaning they were compiled with the 2015 edition). This means that `panic!("{variable}")` will now work as expected in `rmake.rs` files (there's already a usage in the [wasm-symbols-not-exported test](aca749eefc/tests/run-make/wasm-symbols-not-exported/rmake.rs (L34)) that this will fix).
Tracking issue: #121876
and replace it with a simple note suggesting
returning a value.
The type mismatch error was never due to
how many times the loop iterates. It is more
because of the peculiar structure of what the for
loop desugars to. So the note talking about
iteration count didn't make sense
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #124519 (adapt a codegen test for llvm 19)
- #124524 (Add StaticForeignItem and use it on ForeignItemKind)
- #124540 (Give proof tree visitors the ability to instantiate nested goals directly)
- #124543 (codegen tests: Tolerate `range()` qualifications in enum tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
codegen tests: Tolerate `range()` qualifications in enum tests
Current LLVM can infer range bounds on the i8s involved with these tests, and annotates it. Accept these bounds if present.
`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main
cc `@durin42`
Add StaticForeignItem and use it on ForeignItemKind
This is in preparation for unsafe extern blocks that adds a safe variant for functions inside extern blocks.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@compiler-errors`
coverage: Replace boolean options with a `CoverageLevel` enum
After #123409, and some discussion at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79649#issuecomment-2042093553 and #124120, it became clear to me that we should have a unified concept of “coverage level”, instead of having several separate boolean flags that aren't actually independent.
This PR therefore introduces a `CoverageLevel` enum, to replace the existing boolean flags for `branch` and `mcdc`.
The `no-branch` value (for `-Zcoverage-options`) has been renamed to `block`, instructing the compiler to only instrument for block coverage, with no branch coverage or MD/DC instrumentation.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
cc `@ZhuUx` `@Lambdaris` `@RenjiSann`
Add a note to the ArbitraryExpressionInPattern error
The current "arbitrary expressions aren't allowed in patterns" error is confusing, as it fires for code where it *looks* like a pattern but the compiler still treats it as an expression. That this is due to the `:expr` fragment specifier forcing the expression-ness property on the code.
In the test suite, the "arbitrary expressions aren't allowed in patterns" error can only be found in combination with macro_rules macros that force expression-ness of their content, namely via `:expr` metavariables. I also can't come up with cases where there would be an expression instead of a pattern, so I think it's always coming from an `:expr`.
In order to make the error less confusing, this adds a note explaining the weird `:expr` fragment behaviour.
Fixes#99380
[Refactor] Rename `Lint` and `LintGroup`'s `is_loaded` to `is_externally_loaded`
The field being named `is_loaded` was very confusing. Turns out it's true for lints that are registered by external tools like Clippy (I had to look at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116412 to know what the variable meant). So I renamed `is_loaded` to `is_externally_loaded` and added some docs.
Mark unions non-const-propagatable in `KnownPanicsLint` without calling layout
Fixes#123710
The ICE occurs during the layout calculation of the union `InvalidTag` in #123710 because the following assert fails:5fe8b697e7/compiler/rustc_abi/src/layout.rs (L289-L292)
The layout calculation is invoked by `KnownPanicsLint` when it is trying to figure out which locals it can const prop. Since `KnownPanicsLint` is never actually going to const props unions thanks to PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121628 there's no point calling layout to check if it can. So in this fix I skip the call to layout and just mark the local non-const propagatable if it is a union.
Fix#124478 - offset_of! returns a temporary
This was due to the must_use() call. Adding HIR's `OffsetOf` to the must_use checking within the compiler avoids this issue while maintaining the lint output.
Fixes#124478. `@tgross35`
MCDC coverage: support nested decision coverage
#123409 provided the initial MCDC coverage implementation.
As referenced in #124144, it does not currently support "nested" decisions, like the following example :
```rust
fn nested_if_in_condition(a: bool, b: bool, c: bool) {
if a && if b || c { true } else { false } {
say("yes");
} else {
say("no");
}
}
```
Note that there is an if-expression (`if b || c ...`) embedded inside a boolean expression in the decision of an outer if-expression.
This PR proposes a workaround for this cases, by introducing a Decision context stack, and by handing several `temporary condition bitmaps` instead of just one.
When instrumenting boolean expressions, if the current node is a leaf condition (i.e. not a `||`/`&&` logical operator nor a `!` not operator), we insert a new decision context, such that if there are more boolean expressions inside the condition, they are handled as separate expressions.
On the codegen LLVM side, we allocate as many `temp_cond_bitmap`s as necessary to handle the maximum encountered decision depth.
Port `print-cfg` run-make test to Rust-based rmake.rs
This PR port the `print-cfg` run-make test to Rust-based rmake.rs tests.
The actual test is now split in two:
- the first part for the `--print=cfg` part
- and the second part for the `=PATH` part of `--print`
Part of #121876.
r? `@jieyouxu`
