Point at method call on missing annotation error
Make it clearer where the type name that couldn't be inferred comes from.
Before:
```
error[E0282]: type annotations needed
--> src/test/ui/span/type-annotations-needed-expr.rs:2:13
|
2 | let _ = (vec![1,2,3]).into_iter().sum() as f64; //~ ERROR E0282
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ cannot infer type for `S`
|
= note: type must be known at this point
```
after
```
error[E0282]: type annotations needed
--> src/test/ui/span/type-annotations-needed-expr.rs:2:39
|
2 | let _ = (vec![1,2,3]).into_iter().sum() as f64; //~ ERROR E0282
| ^^^ cannot infer type for `S`
|
= note: type must be known at this point
```
CC #63852.
Improve the documentation for std::hint::black_box.
The other day a colleague was reviewing some of my code which was using `black_box` to block constant propogation. There was a little confusion because the documentation kind of implies that `black_box` is only useful for dead code elimination, and only in benchmarking scenarios.
The docs currently say:
> A function that is opaque to the optimizer, to allow benchmarks to pretend to use outputs to assist in avoiding dead-code elimination.
Here is our discussion, in which I show (using godbolt) that a black box can also block constant propagation:
https://github.com/softdevteam/yk/pull/21#discussion_r302985038
This change makes the docstring for `black_box` a little more general, and while we are here, I've added an example (the same one from our discussion).
OK to go in?
Permit unwinding through FFI by default
This repeats #62505 for master (Rust 1.38+), as #58794 is not yet resolved. This is a stopgap until a stable alternative is available, like [RFC 2699](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2699), as long as progress is being made to that end.
r? @joshtriplett
This replaces the ad-hoc tuples used in the different feature gate files
and unifies their content into a common type, leading to more readable
matches and other good stuff that comes from having named fields. It
also contains the description of each feature as extracted from the doc
comment.
typeck: refactor patterns => `pat.rs` + make the `def_bm` algo more declarative
Spurred by the relative difficulty I had in working up an explanation of how default match bindings work in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/63118#issuecomment-524161584, this PR refactors the type checking of patterns into `pat.rs`.
The PR is probably best read commit-by-commit and includes various changes beyond the following, which are the most important highlights:
- The algorithm for determining `def_bm` is encoded in a more declarative fashion now with important sub-steps divided into functions that make sense as logical units (and as described in the reference). This is done starting with *"extract `is_no_ref_pat`."* to *"extract `calc_default_binding_mode`"*.
- Dedicated functions like `check_pat_{lit,range,ident,tuple,box,ref,slice}` are then introduced for the various kinds of patterns to make things overall more readable.
- `fn check_pat_top(...)` becomes the sole entry point to type checking patterns.
This will take care of initializing the default binding mode (hence: `def_bm`) to `BindByValue` and is called by all contexts that have a pattern that needs to be type checked (functions, `match`, `if let`, `let`, ...). The overall result is that the notion of `def_bm` is internal to checking patterns.
- Various diagnostics are extracted to dedicated functions to disturb the flow of type checking logic less.
r? @oli-obk
Closure types have been moved to the namespace where they
are defined, and both closure and generator type names now
include the disambiguator.
This fixes an exception when lldb prints nested closures.
Fixes#57822
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #62744 (Refactor `TinyList::contains` and `len` to iterate instead of recurse)
- #63813 (Do not suggest `.try_into()` on `i32::from(x)`)
- #63833 (Suggest calling closure with resolved return type when appropriate)
- #63839 (Ensure miri can do bit ops on pointer values)
- #63854 (Modifies how Arg, Arm, Field, FieldPattern and Variant are visited)
- #63859 (Don't unwrap the result of `span_to_snippet`)
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
Suggest calling closure with resolved return type when appropriate
Follow up to #63337. CC #63100.
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> $DIR/fn-or-tuple-struct-without-args.rs:46:20
|
LL | let closure = || 42;
| -- closure defined here
LL | let _: usize = closure;
| ^^^^^^^
| |
| expected usize, found closure
| help: use parentheses to call this closure: `closure()`
|
= note: expected type `usize`
found type `[closure@$DIR/fn-or-tuple-struct-without-args.rs:45:19: 45:24]`
```
