Don't ICE if HIR and middle types disagree in borrowck error reporting
We try to match up the `middle::ty::Ty` and `hir::Ty` types in borrowck error reporting, but due to things like `Self` self type alias, or regular type aliases, these might not match up. Don't ICE.
This PR also tries to recover the error by looking up the self type of the impl in case we see `Self`. The diagnostic is frankly quite confusing, but I also didn't really want to look at it because I don't understand the conflict error reporting logic. 🤷Fixes#121816
Make sure that args are compatible in `resolve_associated_item`
Implements a similar check to the one that we have in projection for GATs (#102488, #123240), where we check that the args of an impl item are compatible before returning it. This is done in `resolve_assoc_item`, which is backing `Instance::resolve`, so this is conceptually generalizing the check from GATs to methods/assoc consts. This is important to make sure that the inliner will only visit and substitute MIR bodies that are compatible w/ their trait definitions.
This shouldn't happen in codegen, but there are a few ways to get the inliner to be invoked (via calls to `optimized_mir`) before codegen, namely polymorphization and CTFE.
Fixes#121957Fixes#120792Fixes#120793Fixes#121063
`#[naked]`: use an allowlist for allowed options on `asm!` in naked functions
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
this is mostly just a refactor, but using an allowlist (rather than a denylist) for which asm options are allowed in naked functions is a little safer.
These options are disallowed because naked functions are effectively global asm, but defined using inline asm.
Implement lint against ambiguous negative literals
This PR implements a lint against ambiguous negative literals with a literal and method calls right after it.
## `ambiguous_negative_literals`
(deny-by-default)
The `ambiguous_negative_literals` lint checks for cases that are confusing between a negative literal and a negation that's not part of the literal.
### Example
```rust,compile_fail
-1i32.abs(); // equals -1, while `(-1i32).abs()` equals 1
```
### Explanation
Method calls take precedence over unary precedence. Setting the precedence explicitly makes the code clearer and avoid potential bugs.
<details>
<summary>Old proposed lint</summary>
## `ambiguous_unary_precedence`
(deny-by-default)
The `ambiguous_unary_precedence` lint checks for use the negative unary operator with a literal and method calls.
### Example
```rust
-1i32.abs(); // equals -1, while `(-1i32).abs()` equals 1
```
### Explanation
Unary operations take precedence on binary operations and method calls take precedence over unary precedence. Setting the precedence explicitly makes the code clearer and avoid potential bugs.
</details>
-----
Note: This is a strip down version of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117161, without the binary op precedence.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117155
`@rustbot` labels +I-lang-nominated
cc `@scottmcm`
r? compiler
compiler: Never debug_assert in codegen
In the name of Turing and his Hoarey heralds, assert our truths before creating a monster!
The `rustc_codegen_llvm` and `rustc_codegen_ssa` crates are fairly critical for rustc's correctness. Small mistakes here can easily result in undefined behavior, since a "small mistake" can mean something like "link and execute the wrong code". We should probably run any and all asserts in these modules unconditionally on whether this is a "debug build", and damn the costs in performance.
...Especially because the costs in performance seem to be *nothing*. It is not clear how much correctness we gain here, but I'll take free correctness improvements.
Don't ICE when auto trait has assoc ty in old solver
Kinda a pointless change to make, but it's observable w/o the feature gate, so let's just fix it. I reintroduced this ICE when I removed the "auto impl" kind from `ImplSource` in #112687.
Fixes#117829Fixes#127746
Do not use question as label
We don't want to have questions in the diagnostic output. Instead, we use wording that communicates uncertainty, like "might":
```
error[E0432]: unresolved import `spam`
--> $DIR/import-from-missing-star-3.rs:2:9
|
LL | use spam::*;
| ^^^^ you might be missing crate `spam`
|
= help: consider adding `extern crate spam` to use the `spam` crate
```
Replace ASCII control chars with Unicode Control Pictures
Replace ASCII control chars like `CR` with Unicode Control Pictures like `␍`:
```
error: bare CR not allowed in doc-comment
--> $DIR/lex-bare-cr-string-literal-doc-comment.rs:3:32
|
LL | /// doc comment with bare CR: '␍'
| ^
```
Centralize the checking of unicode char width for the purposes of CLI display in one place. Account for the new replacements. Remove unneeded tracking of "zero-width" unicode chars, as we calculate these in the `SourceMap` as needed now.
Reorder trait bound modifiers *after* `for<...>` binder in trait bounds
This PR suggests changing the grammar of trait bounds from:
```
[CONSTNESS] [ASYNCNESS] [?] [BINDER] [TRAIT_PATH]
const async ? for<'a> Sized
```
to
```
([BINDER] [CONSTNESS] [ASYNCNESS] | [?]) [TRAIT_PATH]
```
i.e., either
```
? Sized
```
or
```
for<'a> const async Sized
```
(but not both)
### Why?
I think it's strange that the binder applies "more tightly" than the `?` trait polarity. This becomes even weirder when considering that we (or at least, I) want to have `async` trait bounds expressed like:
```
where T: for<'a> async Fn(&'a ()) -> i32,
```
and not:
```
where T: async for<'a> Fn(&'a ()) -> i32,
```
### Fallout
No crates on crater use this syntax, presumably because it's literally useless. This will require modifying the reference grammar, though.
### Alternatives
If this is not desirable, then we can alternatively keep parsing `for<'a>` after the `?` but deprecate it with either an FCW (or an immediate hard error), and begin parsing `for<'a>` *before* the `?`.
We don't want to have questions in the diagnostic output. Instead, we use wording that communicates uncertainty, like "might":
```
error[E0432]: unresolved import `spam`
--> $DIR/import-from-missing-star-3.rs:2:9
|
LL | use spam::*;
| ^^^^ you might be missing crate `spam`
|
= help: consider adding `extern crate spam` to use the `spam` crate
```
Mark `missing_fragment_specifier` as `FutureReleaseErrorReportInDeps`
We are moving toward forbidding `missing_fragment_specifier` either in edition 2024 or unconditionally. Make a first step toward this by ensuring crates that rely on the old behavior are reported when used as dependencies.
Tracking issue: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128143>
Fix malformed suggestion for repeated maybe unsized bounds
Fixes#127441
Now when we encounter something like `foo(a : impl ?Sized + ?Sized)`, instead of suggesting removal of both bounds and leaving `foo(a: impl )` behind, we suggest changing the first bound to `Sized` and removing the second bound, resulting in `foo(a: impl Sized)`.
Although the issue was reported for impl trait types, it also occurred with regular param bounds. So if we encounter `foo<T: ?Sized + ?Sized>(a: T)` we now detect that all the bounds are `?Sized` and therefore emit the suggestion to remove the entire predicate `: ?Sized + ?Sized` resulting in `foo<T>(a: T)`.
Lastly, if we encounter a situation where some of the bounds are something other than `?Sized`, then we emit separate removal suggestions for each `?Sized` bound. E.g. if we see `foo(a: impl ?Sized + Bar + ?Sized)` or `foo<T: ?Sized + Bar + ?Sized>(a: T)` we emit suggestions such that the user will be left with `foo(a : impl Bar)` or `foo<T: Bar>(a: T)` respectively.
Do not try to reveal hidden types when trying to prove auto-traits in the defining scope
fixes#99793
this avoids the cycle error by just causing a selection error, which is not fatal. We pessimistically assume that freeze does not hold, which is always a safe assumption.
We are moving toward forbidding `missing_fragment_specifier` either in
edition 2024 or unconditionally. Make a first step toward this by
ensuring crates that rely on the old behavior are reported when used as
dependencies.
Tracking issue: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128143>
Improve spans on evaluated `cfg_attr`s.
When converting something like `#![cfg_attr(cond, attr)]` into `#![attr]`, we currently duplicate the `#` token and the `!` token. But weirdly, there is also this comment:
// We don't really have a good span to use for the synthesized `[]`
// in `#[attr]`, so just use the span of the `#` token.
Maybe that comment used to be true? But now it is false: we can duplicate the existing delimiters (and their spans and spacing), much like we do for the `#` and `!`.
This commit does that, thus removing the incorrect comment, and improving the spans on `Group`s in a few proc-macro tests.
`@petrochenkov`
Gate `AsyncFn*` under `async_closure` feature
T-lang has not come to a consensus on the naming of async closure callable bounds, and as part of allowing the async closures RFC merge, we agreed to place `AsyncFn` under the same gate as `async Fn` so that these syntaxes can be evaluated in parallel.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3668#issuecomment-2246435537
r? oli-obk
Since LLVM 19, it is necessary to set not only module flags, but
also function attributes for branch protection on aarch64. See
e15d67cfc2
for the relevant LLVM change.
Do not use global caches if opaque types can be defined
fixes#119272
r? `@lcnr`
This is certainly a crude way to make the cache sound wrt opaque types, but since perf lets us get away with this, let's do it in the old solver and let the new solver fix this correctly once and for all.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122192#issuecomment-2149252655
When converting something like `#![cfg_attr(cond, attr)]` into
`#![attr]`, we currently duplicate the `#` token and the `!` token. But
weirdly, there is also this comment:
// We don't really have a good span to use for the synthesized `[]`
// in `#[attr]`, so just use the span of the `#` token.
Maybe that comment used to be true? But now it is false: we can
duplicate the existing delimiters (and their spans and spacing), much
like we do for the `#` and `!`.
This commit does that, thus removing the incorrect comment, and
improving the spans on `Group`s in a few proc-macro tests.
Make ast `MutVisitor` have the same method name and style as `Visitor`
It doesn't map 100% because some `MutVisitor` methods can filter or even expand to multiple items, but consistency seems nicer.
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127615
Note closure captures when reporting cast to fn ptr failed
Fixes#128078
We already had logic to point out a closure having captures when that's possibly the source of a coercion error to `fn()`, but we weren't reporting it during an explicit `as` cast.
Reword E0626 to mention static coroutine, add structured suggestion for adding `static`
Not certain how to make the example feel less artificial. 🤷
My main point though is that we should probably emphasize that the first solution to making a coroutine allow a borrow across an await is making it `static`.
Also adds a structured suggestion.
treat `&raw (const|mut) UNSAFE_STATIC` implied deref as safe
Fixesrust-lang/rust#125833
As reported in that and related issues, `static mut STATIC_MUT: T` is very often used in embedded code, and is in many ways equivalent to `static STATIC_CELL: SyncUnsafeCell<T>`. The Rust expression of `&raw mut STATIC_MUT` and `SyncUnsafeCell::get(&STATIC_CELL)` are approximately equal, and both evaluate to `*mut T`. The library function is safe because it has *declared itself* to be safe. However, the raw ref operator is unsafe because all uses of `static mut` are considered unsafe, even though the static's value is not used by this expression (unlike, for example, `&STATIC_MUT`).
We can fix this unnatural difference by simply adding the proper exclusion for the safety check inside the THIR unsafeck, so that we do not declare it unsafe if it is not.
While the primary concern here is `static mut`, this change is made for all instances of an "unsafe static", which includes a static declared inside `extern "abi" {}`. Hypothetically, we could go as far as generalizing this to all instances of `&raw (const|mut) *ptr`, but today we do not, as we have not actually considered the range of possible expressions that use a similar encoding. We do not even extend this to thread-local equivalents, because they have less clear semantics.
