The older code would sometimes swallow errors or fail to produce a
suggestion. The newer code does not. However, just printing everything
would produce a bunch of new and kind of annoying errors, so continue
to swallow `T: 'a` errors so long as there are other things to show.
This adds ‘help’ diagnostic messages to rustc. This is used for anything that
provides help to the user, particularly the `--explain` messages that were
previously integrated into the relevant error message.
[breaking-change]
1. The internal layout for traits has changed from (vtable, data) to (data, vtable). If you were relying on this in unsafe transmutes, you might get some very weird and apparently unrelated errors. You should not be doing this! Prefer not to do this at all, but if you must, you should use raw::TraitObject rather than hardcoding rustc's internal representation into your code.
2. The minimal type of reference-to-vec-literals (e.g., `&[1, 2, 3]`) is now a fixed size vec (e.g., `&[int, ..3]`) where it used to be an unsized vec (e.g., `&[int]`). If you want the unszied type, you must explicitly give the type (e.g., `let x: &[_] = &[1, 2, 3]`). Note in particular where multiple blocks must have the same type (e.g., if and else clauses, vec elements), the compiler will not coerce to the unsized type without a hint. E.g., `[&[1], &[1, 2]]` used to be a valid expression of type '[&[int]]'. It no longer type checks since the first element now has type `&[int, ..1]` and the second has type &[int, ..2]` which are incompatible.
3. The type of blocks (including functions) must be coercible to the expected type (used to be a subtype). Mostly this makes things more flexible and not less (in particular, in the case of coercing function bodies to the return type). However, in some rare cases, this is less flexible. TBH, I'm not exactly sure of the exact effects. I think the change causes us to resolve inferred type variables slightly earlier which might make us slightly more restrictive. Possibly it only affects blocks with unreachable code. E.g., `if ... { fail!(); "Hello" }` used to type check, it no longer does. The fix is to add a semicolon after the string.
This implements RFC 39. Omitted lifetimes in return values will now be
inferred to more useful defaults, and an error is reported if a lifetime
in a return type is omitted and one of the two lifetime elision rules
does not specify what it should be.
This primarily breaks two uncommon code patterns. The first is this:
unsafe fn get_foo_out_of_thin_air() -> &Foo {
...
}
This should be changed to:
unsafe fn get_foo_out_of_thin_air() -> &'static Foo {
...
}
The second pattern that needs to be changed is this:
enum MaybeBorrowed<'a> {
Borrowed(&'a str),
Owned(String),
}
fn foo() -> MaybeBorrowed {
Owned(format!("hello world"))
}
Change code like this to:
enum MaybeBorrowed<'a> {
Borrowed(&'a str),
Owned(String),
}
fn foo() -> MaybeBorrowed<'static> {
Owned(format!("hello world"))
}
Closes#15552.
[breaking-change]
This includes a change to the way lifetime names are generated. Say we
figure that `[#0, 'a, 'b]` have to be the same lifetimes, then instead
of just generating a new lifetime `'c` like before to replace them, we
would reuse `'a`. This is done so that when the lifetime name comes
from an impl, we don't give something that's completely off, and we
don't have to do much work to figure out where the name came from. For
example, for the following code snippet:
```rust
struct Baz<'x> {
bar: &'x int
}
impl<'x> Baz<'x> {
fn baz1(&self) -> &int {
self.bar
}
}
```
`[#1, 'x]` (where `#1` is BrAnon(1) and refers to lifetime of `&int`)
have to be marked the same lifetime. With the old method, we would
generate a new lifetime `'a` and suggest `fn baz1(&self) -> &'a int`
or `fn baz1<'a>(&self) -> &'a int`, both of which are wrong.
Some types of error are caused by missing lifetime parameter on function
or method declaration. In such cases, this commit generates some
suggestion about what the function declaration could be. This does not
support method declaration yet.
