Functions annotated with `#[rustc_lint_diagnostics]` are used by the
diagnostic migration lints to know when to lint, but functions that are
annotated with this attribute shouldn't themselves be linted.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
translations(rustc_session): migrates `rustc_session` to use `SessionDiagnostic` - Pt. 1
## Description
This is the first PR for the migration of the module `rustc_session`. You can follow my progress [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100717#issuecomment-1220279883).
The PR migrates the files `cgu_reuse_tracker` and `parse.rs` to use `SessionDiagnostic `.
Migrate rustc_monomorphize to use SessionDiagnostic
### Description
- Migrates diagnostics in `rustc_monomorphize` to use `SessionDiagnostic`
- Adds an `impl IntoDiagnosticArg for PathBuf`
### TODO / Help!
- [x] I'm having trouble figuring out how to apply an optional note. 😕 Help!?
- Resolved. It was bad docs. Fixed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/1437/files
- [x] `errors:RecursionLimit` should be `#[fatal ...]`, but that doesn't exist so it's `#[error ...]` at the moment.
- Maybe I can switch after this is merged in? --> https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100694
- Or maybe I need to manually implement `SessionDiagnostic` instead of deriving it?
- [x] How does one go about converting an error inside of [a call to struct_span_lint_hir](8064a49508/compiler/rustc_monomorphize/src/collector.rs (L917-L927))?
- [x] ~What placeholder do you use in the fluent template to refer to the value in a vector? It seems like [this code](0b79f758c9/compiler/rustc_macros/src/diagnostics/diagnostic_builder.rs (L83-L114)) ought to have the answer (or something near it)...but I can't figure it out.~ You can't. Punted.
This PR will fix some typos detected by [typos].
I only picked the ones I was sure were spelling errors to fix, mostly in
the comments.
[typos]: https://github.com/crate-ci/typos
Make call suggestions more general and more accurate
Cleans up some suggestions that have to do with adding `()` to make typeck happy.
1. Drive-by rename of `expr_t` to `base_ty` since it's the type of the `base_expr`
1. Autoderef until we get to a callable type in `suggest_fn_call`.
1. Don't erroneously suggest calling constructor when a method/field does not exist on it.
1. Suggest calling a method receiver if its function output has a method (e.g. `fn.method()` => `fn().method()`)
1. Extend call suggestions to type parameters, fn pointers, trait objects where possible
1. Suggest calling in operators too (fixes#101054)
1. Use `/* {ty} */` as argument placeholder instead of just `_`, which is confusing and makes suggestions look less like `if let` syntax.
Add tier-3 support for powerpc64 and riscv64 openbsd
# powerpc64
- MCP for [powerpc64-unknown-openbsd tier-3 support](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/551)
- only need to add spec definition in rustc_target
# riscv64
- MCP for [riscv64-unknown-openbsd tier-3 support](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/552)
- add spec definition in rustc_target
- follow freebsd about avoiding linking with `libatomic`
Allow deriving multipart suggestions
This turned into a bit more of a rewrite than I was initially hoping for... Still, I think the `SessionSubdiagnostic` derive is a little cleaner overall now, and closer to the `SessionDiagnostic` derive to make future code sharing easier.
r? ``@davidtwco``
Set DebuginfoKind::Pdb in msvc_base
This PDB setting was added to `windows_msvc_base` in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98051. It's also needed for the
UEFI targets, and since `uefi_msvc_base` and `windows_msvc_base` are the
only things that inherit from `msvc_base`, just move the PDB setting up
to `mscv_base` to cover both.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101071
Rework definition of MIR phases to more closely reflect semantic concerns
Implements most of rust-lang/compiler-team#522 .
I tried my best to restrict this PR to the "core" parts of the MCP. In other words, this includes just enough changes to make the new definition of `MirPhase` make sense. That means there are a couple of FIXMEs lying around. Depending on what reviewers prefer, I can either fix them in this PR or send follow up PRs. There are also a couple other refactorings of the `rustc_mir_transform/src/lib.rs` file that I want to do in follow ups that I didn't leave explicit FIXMEs for.
Previously we were just using the parent node as the scope for a
temporary value, but it turns out this is too narrow. For example, in
an expression like
Foo {
b: &42,
a: async { 0 }.await,
}
the scope for the &42 was set to the ExprField node for `b: &42`, when
we actually want to use the Foo struct expression.
We fix this by recursively searching through parent nodes until we find
a Node::Expr. It may be that we don't find one, and if so that's okay,
we will just fall back on the enclosing temporary scope which is always
sufficient.
Strengthen invalid_value lint to forbid uninit primitives, adjust docs to say that's UB
For context: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66151#issuecomment-1174477404=
This does not make it a FCW, but it does explicitly state in the docs that uninit integers are UB.
This also doesn't affect any runtime behavior, uninit u32's will still successfully be created through mem::uninitialized.
Thought of doing this by having a struct and an enum with Default and Alt cases, but not sure if we wanted to have the text in code instead of having “demangling()” and “demangling-alt()” in the ftl file.
Don’t like the current way of having structs representing the same-ish and using long names to distinguish their expectations, instead of putting this in an enum and handling the different cases inside the type.
I am fine with whichever option the team prefers; also understand having them as separate structs keeps it simple.
