Provide a `PathSegment.res` in more cases
I find that in many cases, the `res` associated with a `PathSegment` is `Res::Err` even though the path was fully resolved. A few diagnostics use this `res` and their error messages suffer because of the lack of resolved segment.
This fixes it a bit, but it's obviously not complete and I'm not exactly sure if it's correct.
Greatly improve error reporting for futures and generators in `note_obligation_cause_code`
Most futures don't go through this code path, because they're caught by
`maybe_note_obligation_cause_for_async_await`. But all generators do,
and `maybe_note` is imperfect and doesn't catch all futures. Improve the error message for those it misses.
At some point, we may want to consider unifying this with the code for `maybe_note_async_await`,
so that `async_await` notes all parent constraints, and `note_obligation` can point to yield points.
But both functions are quite complicated, and it's not clear to me how to combine them;
this seems like a good incremental improvement.
Helps with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97332.
r? ``@estebank`` cc ``@eholk`` ``@compiler-errors``
In fc357039f9 `#[main]` was removed and replaced with `#[rustc_main]`.
In some place the rename was forgotten, which makes the current code
confusing, because at first glance it seems that `#[main]` is still
around. Perform the renames also in these places.
Older llvm has the pre-C++17 restriction on success and failure memory
ordering, requiring the former to be at least as strong as the latter.
So, for llvm 12, this upgrades the success ordering to a stronger one if
necessary.
Create elided lifetime parameters for function-like types
Split from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97720
This PR refactor lifetime generic parameters in bare function types and parenthesized traits to introduce the additional required lifetimes as fresh parameters in a `for<>` bound.
This PR does the same to lifetimes appearing in closure signatures, and as-if introducing `for<>` bounds on closures (without the associated change in semantics).
r? `@petrochenkov`
Point at return expression for RPIT-related error
Certainly this needs some diagnostic refining, but I wanted to show that it was possible first and foremost. Not sure if this is the right approach. Open to feedback.
Fixes#80583
use `def_ident_span` , `body_owner_def_id` instead of `in_progress_typeck_results`, `guess_head_span`
use `body_id.owner` directly
add description to label
This comment is out dated and misleading, the arm is about TAITs
r? ```@oli-obk```
```@oli-obk``` unsure if you want to add a different comment of some sort.
```@bors``` rollup=always
Remove the unused-`#[doc(hidden)]` logic from the `unused_attributes` lint
Fixes#96890.
It was found out that `#[doc(hidden)]` on trait impl items does indeed have an effect on the generated documentation (see the linked issue). In my opinion and the one of [others](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/266220-rustdoc/topic/Validy.20checks.20for.20.60.23.5Bdoc.28hidden.29.5D.60/near/281846219), rustdoc's output is actually a bit flawed in that regard but that should be tracked in a new issue I suppose (I will open an issue for that in the near future).
The check was introduced in #96008 which is marked to be part of version `1.62` (current `beta`). As far as I understand, this means that **this PR needs to be backported** to `beta` to fix#96890 on time. Correct me if I am wrong.
CC `@dtolnay` (in case you would like to agree or disagree with my decision to fully remove this check)
`@rustbot` label A-lint T-compiler T-rustdoc
r? `@rust-lang/compiler`
lub: don't bail out due to empty binders
allows for the following to compile. The equivalent code using `struct Wrapper<'upper>(fn(&'upper ());` already compiles on stable.
```rust
let _: fn(&'upper ()) = match v {
true => lt_in_fn::<'a>(),
false => lt_in_fn::<'b>(),
};
```
see https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=7034a677190110941223cafac6632f70 for a complete example
r? ```@rust-lang/types```
#91318 introduced a trait for infallible folders distinct from the fallible version. For some reason (completely unfathomable to me now that I look at it with fresh eyes), the infallible trait was a supertrait of the fallible one: that is, all fallible folders were required to also be infallible. Moreover the `Error` associated type was defined on the infallible trait! It's so absurd that it has me questioning whether I was entirely sane.
This trait reverses the hierarchy, so that the fallible trait is a supertrait of the infallible one: all infallible folders are required to also be fallible (which is a trivial blanket implementation). This of course makes much more sense! It also enables the `Error` associated type to sit on the fallible trait, where it sensibly belongs.
There is one downside however: folders expose a `tcx` accessor method. Since the blanket fallible implementation for infallible folders only has access to a generic `F: TypeFolder`, we need that trait to expose such an accessor to which we can delegate. Alternatively it's possible to extract that accessor into a separate `HasTcx` trait (or similar) that would then be a supertrait of both the fallible and infallible folder traits: this would ensure that there's only one unambiguous `tcx` method, at the cost of a little additional boilerplate. If desired, I can submit that as a separate PR.
r? @jackh726
Remove the source archive functionality of ArchiveWriter
We now build archives through strictly additive means rather than taking an existing archive and potentially substracting parts. This is simpler and makes it easier to swap out the archive writer in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97485.
