resolve: Do not put macros into `module.unexpanded_invocations` unless necessary
Macro invocations in modules <sup>(*)</sup> need to be tracked because they can produce named items when expanded.
We cannot give definite answer to queries like "does this module declare name `n`?" until all macro calls in that module are expanded.
Previously we marked too many macros as potentially producing named items.
E.g. in this example
```rust
mod m {
const C: u32 = line!();
}
```
`line!()` cannot emit any items into module `m`, but it was still marked.
This PR fixes that and marks macro calls as "unexpanded in module" only if they can actually emit named items into that module.
Diagnostics in UI test outputs have different order now because this change affects macro expansion order.
<sup>*</sup> Any containers for named items are called modules in resolve (that includes blocks, traits and enums in addition to `mod` items).
const_generics: assert resolve hack causes an error
prevent the min_const_generics `HACK`s in resolve from triggering a fallback path which successfully compiles so that we don't have to worry about future compat issues when removing it
r? `@eddyb` cc `@varkor`
Allow making `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP` conditional on the crate name
Motivation: This came up in the [Zulip stream](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/233931-t-compiler.2Fmajor-changes/topic/Require.20users.20to.20confirm.20they.20know.20RUSTC_.E2.80.A6.20compiler-team.23350/near/208403962) for https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/350.
See also https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/6608#issuecomment-458546258; this implements https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/6627.
The goal is for this to eventually allow prohibiting setting `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP` in build.rs (https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/7088).
## User-facing changes
- `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1` still works; there is no current plan to remove this.
- Things like `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=0` no longer activate nightly features. In practice this shouldn't be a big deal, since `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP` is the opposite of stable and everyone uses `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1` anyway.
- `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=x` will enable nightly features only for crate `x`.
- `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=x,y` will enable nightly features only for crates `x` and `y`.
## Implementation changes
The main change is that `UnstableOptions::from_environment` now requires
an (optional) crate name. If the crate name is unknown (`None`), then the new feature is not available and you still have to use `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1`. In practice this means the feature is only available for `--crate-name`, not for `#![crate_name]`; I'm interested in supporting the second but I'm not sure how.
Other major changes:
- Added `Session::is_nightly_build()`, which uses the `crate_name` of
the session
- Added `nightly_options::match_is_nightly_build`, a convenience method
for looking up `--crate-name` from CLI arguments.
`Session::is_nightly_build()`should be preferred where possible, since
it will take into account `#![crate_name]` (I think).
- Added `unstable_features` to `rustdoc::RenderOptions`
I'm not sure whether this counts as T-compiler or T-lang; _technically_ RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP is an implementation detail, but it's been used so much it seems like this counts as a language change too.
r? `@joshtriplett`
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` `@hsivonen`
rustc_resolve: Use `#![feature(format_args_capture)]`
This is the best new sugar for quite some time.
(I only changed places that already used named arguments.)
The main change is that `UnstableOptions::from_environment` now requires
an (optional) crate name. If the crate name is unknown (`None`), then the new feature is not available and you still have to use `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1`. In practice this means the feature is only available for `--crate-name`, not for `#![crate_name]`; I'm interested in supporting the second but I'm not sure how.
Other major changes:
- Added `Session::is_nightly_build()`, which uses the `crate_name` of
the session
- Added `nightly_options::match_is_nightly_build`, a convenience method
for looking up `--crate-name` from CLI arguments.
`Session::is_nightly_build()`should be preferred where possible, since
it will take into account `#![crate_name]` (I think).
- Added `unstable_features` to `rustdoc::RenderOptions`
There is a user-facing change here: things like `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=0` no
longer active nightly features. In practice this shouldn't be a big
deal, since `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP` is the opposite of stable and everyone
uses `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1` anyway.
- Add tests
Check against `Cheat`, not whether nightly features are allowed.
Nightly features are always allowed on the nightly channel.
- Only call `is_nightly_build()` once within a function
- Use booleans consistently for rustc_incremental
Sessions can't be passed through threads, so `read_file` couldn't take a
session. To be consistent, also take a boolean in `write_file_header`.
Suggest calling associated `fn` inside `trait`s
When calling a function that doesn't exist inside of a trait's
associated `fn`, and another associated `fn` in that trait has that
name, suggest calling it with the appropriate fully-qualified path.
Expand the label to be more descriptive.
Prompted by the following user experience:
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/cannot-find-function/50663
[resolve] Use `unwrap_or_else` instead of `unwrap_or` in a hot path
This improves the performance of the `resolve_crate` function by 30% for
a very large single file crate with auto-generated C bindings.
cc `@rylev`
min_const_generics: allow ty param in repeat expr
implements https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/260443-project-const-generics/topic/repeat.20expressions
Even with `min_const_generics` active, now keeps resulting in future compat warnings instead of hard errors.
Const parameters, for example `[0; N + 1]`, still result in hard errors during resolve.
```rust
#![allow(dead_code)]
fn foo<T>() {
[0; std::mem::size_of::<*mut T>()];
}
struct Foo<T>(T);
impl<T> Foo<T> {
const ASSOC: usize = 4;
fn test() {
[0; Self::ASSOC];
}
}
```
r? @varkor cc @petrochenkov
When calling a function that doesn't exist inside of a trait's
associated `fn`, and another associated `fn` in that trait has that
name, suggest calling it with the appropriate fully-qualified path.
Expand the label to be more descriptive.
Prompted by the following user experience:
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/cannot-find-function/50663
This commit improves the diagnostic emitted when a tuple struct is being
constructed which has private fields so that private fields are
labelled and the message is improved.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
Compute proper module parent during resolution
Fixes#75982
The direct parent of a module may not be a module
(e.g. `const _: () = { #[path = "foo.rs"] mod foo; };`).
To find the parent of a module for purposes of resolution, we need to
walk up the tree until we hit a module or a crate root.
fix def collector for impl trait
fixes#77329
We now consistently make `impl Trait` a hir owner, requiring some special casing for synthetic generic params.
r? `@eddyb`
Fixes#75982
The direct parent of a module may not be a module
(e.g. `const _: () = { #[path = "foo.rs"] mod foo; };`).
To find the parent of a module for purposes of resolution, we need to
walk up the tree until we hit a module or a crate root.
Use `DroplessArena` where we know the type doesn't need drop
This PR uses a single `DroplessArena` in resolve instead of three separate `TypedArena`s.
`DroplessArena` checks that the type indeed doesn't need drop, so in case the types change, this will result in visible failures.
Suggest correct place to add `self` parameter when inside closure
It would incorrectly suggest adding it as a parameter to the closure instead of the containing function.
[For example](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=1936bcd1e5f981573386e0cee985c3c0):
```
help: add a `self` receiver parameter to make the associated `fn` a method
|
5 | let _ = || self&self;
| ^^^^^
```
`DiagnosticMetadata.current_function` is only used for these messages so tweaking its behavior should be ok.
resolve: further improvements to "try using the enum's variant" diagnostic
Follow-up on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77341#issuecomment-702738281.
This PR improves the diagnostic modified in #77341 to suggest not only those variants which do not have fields, but those with fields (by suggesting with placeholders). In addition, the wording of the tuple-variant-only case is improved slightly.
I've not made further changes to the tuple-variant-only case (e.g. to only suggest variants with the correct number of fields) because I don't think I have enough information to do so reliably (e.g. in the case where there is an attempt to construct a tuple variant, I have no information on how many fields were provided; and in the case of pattern matching, I only have a slice of spans and would need to check for things like `..` in those spans, which doesn't seem worth it).
r? @estebank
This commit improves the tuple struct case added in rust-lang/rust#77341
so that the context is mentioned in more of the message.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
This commit improves the diagnostic modified in rust-lang/rust#77341 to
suggest not only those variants which do not have fields, but those with
fields (by suggesting with placeholders).
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
resolve: improve "try using the enum's variant"
Fixes#73427.
This PR improves the "try using the enum's variant" suggestion:
- Variants in suggestions would not result in more errors (e.g. use of a struct variant is only suggested if the suggestion can trivially construct that variant). Therefore, suggestions are only emitted for variants that have no fields (since the suggestion can't know what value fields would have).
- Suggestions include the syntax for constructing the variant. If a struct or tuple variant is suggested, then it is constructed in the suggestion - unless in pattern-matching or when arguments are already provided.
- A help message is added which mentions the variants which are no longer suggested.
All of the diagnostic logic introduced by this PR is separated from the normal code path for a successful compilation.
r? `@estebank`
This commit modifies name resolution to emit an error when non-static
lifetimes are used in anonymous constants when the `min_const_generics`
feature is enabled.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
This commit improves the "try using the enum's variant" suggestion:
- Variants in suggestions would not result in more errors (e.g. use
of a struct variant is only suggested if the suggestion can
trivially construct that variant). Therefore, suggestions are only
emitted for variants that have no fields (since the suggestion
can't know what value fields would have).
- Suggestions include the syntax for constructing the variant. If a
struct or tuple variant is suggested, then it is constructed in the
suggestion - unless in pattern-matching or when arguments are already
provided.
- A help message is added which mentions the variants which are no
longer suggested.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
use if let instead of single match arm expressions
use if let instead of single match arm expressions to compact code and reduce nesting (clippy::single_match)
* Change error message for type param in a const expression when using
min_const_generics
* Change ParamInNonTrivialAnonConst to contain an extra bool used for
distinguishing whether the passed-in symbol is a type or a value.
Give better diagnostic when using a private tuple struct constructor
Fixes#75907
Some notes:
1. This required some deep changes, including removing a Copy impl for PatKind. If some tests fail, I would still appreciate review on the overall approach
2. this only works with basic patterns (no wildcards for example), and fails if there is any problems getting the visibility of the fields (i am not sure what the failure that can happen in resolve_visibility_speculative, but we check the length of our fields in both cases against each other, so if anything goes wrong, we fall back to the worse error. This could be extended to more patterns
3. this does not yet deal with #75906, but I believe it will be similar
4. let me know if you want more tests
5. doesn't yet at the suggestion that `@yoshuawuyts` suggested at the end of their issue, but that could be added relatively easily (i believe)
Improve unresolved use error message
"use of undeclared type or module `foo`" doesn't mention that it could be a crate.
This error can happen when users forget to add a dependency to `Cargo.toml`, so I think it's important to mention that it could be a missing crate.
I've used a heuristic based on Rust's naming conventions. It complains about an unknown type if the ident starts with an upper-case letter, and crate or module otherwise. It seems to work very well. The expanded error help covers both an unknown type and a missing crate case.
Give a better error message for duplicate built-in macros
Minor follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75176 giving a better error message for duplicate builtin macros. This would have made it a little easier to debug.
r? @petrochenkov
Previously, this would say no such macro existed, but this was
misleading, since the macro _did_ exist, it was just already seen.
- Say where the macro was previously defined
- Add long-form error message
