Check the number of generic lifetime and const parameters of intrinsics
This pull request fixes#85855. The current code for type checking intrinsics only checks the number of generic _type_ parameters, but does not check for an incorrect number of lifetime or const parameters, which can cause problems later on, such as the ICE in #85855, where the code thought that it was looking at a type parameter but found a lifetime parameter:
```
error: internal compiler error: compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/generics.rs:188:18:
expected type parameter, but found another generic parameter
```
The changes in this PR add checks for the number of lifetime and const parameters, expand the scope of `E0094` to also apply to these cases, and improve the error message by properly pluralizing the number of expected generic parameters.
Fix misleading "impl Trait" error
The kinds can't be compared directly, as types with references are treated as different because the lifetimes aren't bound in ty, but are in expected.
Closes#84160
Check node kind to avoid ICE in `check_expr_return()`
This PR fixes#86721. The ICE described there is apparently due to a misunderstanding:
e98897e5dc/compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/expr.rs (L684-L685)
Intuitively, one would think that calling `expect_item()` after `get_parent_item()` should succeed, but as it turns out, `get_parent_item()` can also return foreign, trait, and impl items as well as crates, whereas `expect_item()` specifically expects a `Node::Item`. I have therefore added an extra check to prevent this ICE.
Introduce -Zprofile-closures to evaluate the impact of 2229
This creates a CSV with name "closure_profile_XXXXX.csv", where the
variable part is the process id of the compiler.
To profile a cargo project you can run one of the following depending on
if you're compiling a library or a binary:
```
cargo +nightly rustc --lib -- -Zprofile-closures
cargo +nightly rustc --bin {binary_name} -- -Zprofile-closures
```
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Fix `future_prelude_collision` false positive
Fixes#86633
The lint for checking if method resolution of methods named `try_into` will fail in 2021 edition previously would fire on all inherent methods, however for inherent methods that consume `self`, this takes priority over `TryInto::try_into` due to being inherent, while trait method and methods that take `&self` or `&mut self` don't take priority, and thus aren't affected by this false positive.
This fix is rather simple: simply checking if the inherent method doesn't auto-deref or auto-ref (and thus takes `self`) and if so, prevents the lint from firing.
This creates a CSV with name "closure_profile_XXXXX.csv", where the
variable part is the process id of the compiler.
To profile a cargo project you can run one of the following depending on
if you're compiling a library or a binary:
```
cargo +stage1 rustc --lib -- -Zprofile-closures
cargo +stage1 rustc --bin -- -Zprofile-closures
```
Fix type checking of return expressions outside of function bodies
This pull request fixes#86188. The problem is that the current code for type-checking `return` expressions stops if the `return` occurs outside of a function body, while the correct behavior is to continue type-checking the return value expression (otherwise an ICE happens later on because variables declared in the return value expression don't have a type).
Also, I have noticed that it is sometimes not obvious why a `return` is outside of a function body; for instance, in the example from #86188 (which currently causes an ICE):
```rust
fn main() {
[(); return || {
let tx;
}]
}
```
I have changed the error message to also explain why the `return` is considered outside of the function body:
```
error[E0572]: return statement outside of function body
--> ice0.rs:2:10
|
1 | / fn main() {
2 | | [(); return || {
| |__________^
3 | || let tx;
4 | || }]
| ||_____^ the return is part of this body...
5 | | }
| |_- ...not the enclosing function body
```
2229: Capture box completely in move closures
Even if the content from box is used in a sharef-ref context,
we capture the box entirerly.
This is motivated by:
1) We only capture data that is on the stack.
2) Capturing data from within the box might end up moving more data than
the user anticipated.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/50
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Even if the content from box is used in a sharef-ref context,
we capture the box entirerly.
This is motivated by:
1) We only capture data that is on the stack.
2) Capturing data from within the box might end up moving more data than
the user anticipated.
Fix use placement for suggestions near main.
This fixes an edge case for the suggestion to add a `use`. When running with `--test`, the `main` function will be annotated with an `#[allow(dead_code)]` attribute. The `UsePlacementFinder` would end up using the dummy span of that synthetic attribute. If there are top-level inner attributes, this would place the `use` in the wrong position. The solution here is to ignore attributes with dummy spans.
In the process of working on this, I discovered that the `use_suggestion_placement` test was broken. `UsePlacementFinder` is unaware of active attributes. Attributes like `#[derive]` don't exist in the AST since they are removed. Fixing that is difficult, since the AST does not retain enough information. I considered trying to place the `use` towards the top of the module after any `extern crate` items, but I couldn't find a way to get a span for the start of a module block (the `mod` span starts at the `mod` keyword, and it seems tricky to find the spot just after the opening bracket and past inner attributes). For now, I just put some comments about the issue. This appears to have been a known issue in #44215 where the test for it was introduced, and the fix seemed to be deferred to later.
Permit zero non-zero-field on transparent types
Fixes#77841
This makes the transparent fields meet the below:
> * A `repr(transparent)` type `T` must meet the following rules:
> * It may have any number of 1-ZST fields
> * In addition, it may have at most one other field of type U
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Add `future_prelude_collision` lint
Implements #84594. (RFC rust-lang/rfcs#3114 ([rendered](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3114-prelude-2021.md))) Not entirely complete but wanted to have my progress decently available while I finish off the last little bits.
Things left to implement:
* [x] UI tests for lints
* [x] Only emit lint for 2015 and 2018 editions
* [ ] Lint name/message bikeshedding
* [x] Implement for `FromIterator` (from best I can tell, the current approach as mentioned from [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84594#issuecomment-847288288) won't work due to `FromIterator` instances not using dot-call syntax, but if I'm correct about this then that would also need to be fixed for `TryFrom`/`TryInto`)*
* [x] Add to `rust-2021-migration` group? (See #85512) (added to `rust-2021-compatibility` group)
* [ ] Link to edition guide in lint docs
*edit: looked into it, `lookup_method` will also not be hit for `TryFrom`/`TryInto` for non-dotcall syntax. If anyone who is more familiar with typecheck knows the equivalent for looking up associated functions, feel free to chime in.
Say "this enum variant takes"/"this struct takes" instead of "this function takes"
This makes error messages for functions with incorrect argument counts adapt if they refer to a struct or enum variant:
```
error[E0061]: this enum variant takes 1 argument but 0 arguments were supplied
--> $DIR/struct-enum-wrong-args.rs:7:13
|
LL | let _ = Ok();
| ^^-- supplied 0 arguments
| |
| expected 1 argument
error[E0061]: this struct takes 1 argument but 0 arguments were supplied
--> $DIR/struct-enum-wrong-args.rs:8:13
|
LL | let _ = Wrapper();
| ^^^^^^^-- supplied 0 arguments
| |
| expected 1 argument
```
Fixes#86481.
Replace some `std::iter::repeat` with `str::repeat`
I noticed that there were some instances where `std::iter::repeat` would be used to repeat a string or a char to take a specific count of it and then collect it into a `String` when `str::repeat` is actually much faster and better for that.
See also: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/7260.
Remove some last remants of {push,pop}_unsafe!
These macros have already been removed, but there was still some code handling these macros. That code is now removed.
