diagnostics: add test case for trait bounds diagnostic
Closes#82038
It was fixed by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89580, a wide-reaching obligation tracking improvement. This commit adds a test case.
Don't suggest dereferencing to unsized type
Rudimentary check that the self type is Sized. I don't really like any of this diagnostics code -- it's really messy and also really prone to false positives and negatives, but oh well.
Fixes#115569
Print the path of a return-position impl trait in trait when `return_type_notation` is enabled
When we're printing a return-position impl trait in trait, we usually just print it like an opaque. This is *usually* fine, but can be confusing when using `return_type_notation`. Print the path of the method from where the RPITIT originates when this feature gate is enabled.
rustdoc: Render private fields in tuple struct as `/* private fields */`
Reopening of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110552. All that was missing was a test for the different cases so I added it into the second commit.
Description from the original PR:
> I've gotten some feedback that the current rustdoc rendering of...
>
> ```
> struct HasPrivateFields(_);
> ```
>
> ...is confusing, and I agree with that feedback, especially compared to the field struct case:
>
> ```
> struct HasPrivateFields { /* private fields */ }
> ```
>
> So this PR makes it so that when all of the fields of a tuple variant are private, just render it with the `/* private fields */` comment. We can't *always* render it like that, for example when there's a mix of private and public fields.
cc ````@jsha````
r? ````@notriddle````
Don't require `Drop` for `[PhantomData<T>; N]` where `N` and `T` are generic, if `T` requires `Drop`
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115403
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115410
This was accidentally regressed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114134, because it was accidentally stabilized in #102204 (cc `@rust-lang/lang,` seems like an innocent stabilization, considering this PR is more of a bugfix than a feature).
While we have a whole month to beta backport this change before the regression hits stable, I'd still prefer not to go through an FCP on this PR (which fixes a regression), if T-lang wants an FCP, I can can open an issue about the change itself.
Stabilize `PATH` option for `--print KIND=PATH`
This PR propose stabilizing the `PATH` option for `--print KIND=PATH`. This option was previously added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113780 (as insta-stable before being un-stablized in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114139).
Description of the `PATH` option:
> A filepath may optionally be specified for each requested information kind, in the format `--print KIND=PATH`, just like for `--emit`. When a path is specified, information will be written there instead of to stdout.
------
Description of the original PR [\[link\]](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113780#issue-1807080607):
> **Support --print KIND=PATH command line syntax**
>
> As is already done for `--emit KIND=PATH` and `-L KIND=PATH`.
>
> In the discussion of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110785, it was pointed out that `--print KIND=PATH` is nicer than trying to apply the single global `-o path` to `--print`'s output, because in general there can be multiple print requests within a single rustc invocation, and anyway `-o` would already be used for a different meaning in the case of `link-args` and `native-static-libs`.
>
> I am interested in using `--print cfg=PATH` in Buck2. Currently Buck2 works around the lack of support for `--print KIND=PATH` by [indirecting through a Python wrapper script](d43cf3a51a/prelude/rust/tools/get_rustc_cfg.py) to redirect rustc's stdout into the location dictated by the build system.
>
> From skimming Cargo's usages of `--print`, it definitely seems like it would benefit from `--print KIND=PATH` too. Currently it is working around the lack of this by inserting `--crate-name=___ --print=crate-name` so that it can look for a line containing `___` as a delimiter between the 2 other `--print` informations it actually cares about. This is commented as a "HACK" and "abuse". 31eda6f7c3/src/cargo/core/compiler/build_context/target_info.rs (L242)
-----
cc `@dtolnay`
r? `@jackh726`
Description of the `PATH` option:
> A filepath may optionally be specified for each requested information
> kind, in the format `--print KIND=PATH`, just like for `--emit`. When
> a path is specified, information will be written there instead of to
> stdout.
Implement refinement lint for RPITIT
Implements a lint that warns against accidentally refining an RPITIT in an implementation. This is not a hard error, and can be suppressed with `#[allow(refining_impl_trait)]`, since this behavior may be desirable -- the lint just serves as an acknowledgement from the impl author that they understand that the types they write in the implementation are an API guarantee.
This compares bounds syntactically, not semantically -- semantic implication is more difficult and essentially relies on adding the ability to keep the RPITIT hidden in the trait system so that things can be proven about the type that shows up in the impl without its own bounds leaking through, either via a new reveal mode or something else. This was experimentally implemented in #111931.
Somewhat opinionated choices:
1. Putting the lint behind `refining_impl_trait` rather than a blanket `refine` lint. This could be changed, but I like keeping the lint specialized to RPITITs so the explanation can be tailored to it.
2. This PR does not include the `#[refine]` attribute or the feature gate, since it's kind of orthogonal and can be added in a separate PR.
r? `@oli-obk`
Lint on invalid usage of `UnsafeCell::raw_get` in reference casting
This PR proposes to take into account `UnsafeCell::raw_get` method call for non-Freeze types for the `invalid_reference_casting` lint.
The goal of this is to catch those kind of invalid reference casting:
```rust
fn as_mut<T>(x: &T) -> &mut T {
unsafe { &mut *std::cell::UnsafeCell::raw_get(x as *const _ as *const _) }
//~^ ERROR casting `&T` to `&mut T` is undefined behavior
}
```
r? `@est31`
fix#115348fix#115348
It looks that:
- In `rustc_mir_build::build`, the body of function will not be built, when the `tcx.check_match(def)` fails due to `non-exhaustive patterns`
- In `rustc_mir_transform::check_unsafety`, the `UnsafetyChecker` collects all `used_unsafe_blocks` in the MIR of a function, and the `UnusedUnsafeVisitor` will visit all `UnsafeBlock`s in the HIR and collect `unused_unsafes`, which are not contained in `used_unsafe_blocks`, and report `unnecessary_unsafe`s
- So the unsafe block in the issue example code will be reported as `unnecessary_unsafe`.
Add explanatory note to 'expected item' error
Fixes#113110
It changes the diagnostic from this:
```
error: expected item, found `5`
--> ../test.rs:1:1
|
1 | 5
| ^ expected item
```
to this:
```
error: expected item, found `5`
--> ../test.rs:1:1
|
1 | 5
| ^ expected item
|
= note: items are things that can appear at the root of a module
= note: for a full list see https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/items.html
```
Represent MIR composite debuginfo as projections instead of aggregates
Composite debuginfo for MIR is currently represented as
```
debug name => Type { projection1 => place1, projection2 => place2 };
```
ie. a single `VarDebugInfo` object with that name, and its value a `VarDebugInfoContents::Composite`.
This PR proposes to reverse the representation to be
```
debug name.projection1 => place1;
debug name.projection2 => place2;
```
ie. multiple `VarDebugInfo` objects with each their projection.
This simplifies the handling of composite debuginfo by the compiler by avoiding weird nesting.
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115139
Fix error report for size overflow from transmute
Fixes#115402
The span in the error reporting always points to the `dst`, this is an old issue, I may open another PR to fix it.
Make if let guard parsing consistent with normal guards
- Add tests that struct expressions are not allowed in `if let` and `while let` (no change, consistent with `if` and `while`)
- Allow struct expressions in `if let` guards (consistent with `if` guards).
r? `@cjgillot`
Closes#93817
cc #51114
Add support to return value in StableMIR interface and not crash due to compilation error
Invoking `StableMir::run()` on a crate that has any compilation error was crashing the entire process. Instead, return a `CompilerError` so the user knows compilation did not succeed. I believe ICE will also be converted to `CompilerError`.
I'm also adding a possibility for the callback to return a value. I think it will be handy for users (at least it was for my current task of implementing a tool to validate stable-mir). However, if people disagree, I can remove that.
coverage: Explicitly test the coverage maps produced by codegen/LLVM
Our existing coverage tests verify the output of end-to-end coverage reports, but we don't have any way to test the specific mapping information (code regions and their associated counters) that are emitted by `rustc_codegen_llvm` and LLVM. That makes it harder to to be confident in changes that would modify those mappings (whether deliberately or accidentally).
This PR addresses that by adding a new `coverage-map` test suite that does the following:
- Compiles test files to LLVM IR assembly (`.ll`)
- Feeds those IR files to a custom tool (`src/tools/coverage-dump`) that extracts and decodes coverage mappings, and prints them in a more human-readable format
- Checks the output of that tool against known-good snapshots
---
I recommend excluding the last commit while reviewing the main changes, because that last commit is just ~40 test files copied over from `tests/run-coverage`, plus their blessed coverage-map snapshots and a readme file. Those snapshots aren't really intended to be checked by hand; they're mostly there to increase the chances that an unintended change to coverage maps will be observable (even if it requires relatively specific circumstances to manifest).
