Fix non-existent-field ICE for generic fields.
I mentioned this ICE in a chat and it took about 3 milliseconds before `@eddyb` found the problem and said this change would fix it. :)
This also changes one the field types in the related test to one that triggered the ICE.
Fixes#81627.
Fixes#81672.
Fixes#81709.
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81480 `@b-naber` `@estebank.`
Remove incorrect `delay_span_bug`
The following code is supposed to compile
```rust
use std::ops::BitOr;
pub trait IntWrapper {
type InternalStorage;
}
impl<T> BitOr for dyn IntWrapper<InternalStorage = T>
where
Self: Sized,
T: BitOr + BitOr<Output = T>,
{
type Output = Self;
fn bitor(self, _other: Self) -> Self {
todo!()
}
}
```
Before this change it would ICE. In #70998 the removed logic was added
to provide better suggestions, and the `delay_span_bug` guard was added
to protect against a potential logic error when returning traits. As it
happens, there are cases, like the one above, where traits can indeed be
returned, so valid code was being rejected.
Fix (but not close) #80207.
The following code is supposed to compile
```rust
use std::ops::BitOr;
pub trait IntWrapper {
type InternalStorage;
}
impl<T> BitOr for dyn IntWrapper<InternalStorage = T>
where
Self: Sized,
T: BitOr + BitOr<Output = T>,
{
type Output = Self;
fn bitor(self, _other: Self) -> Self {
todo!()
}
}
```
Before this change it would ICE. In #70998 the removed logic was added
to provide better suggestions, and the `delay_span_bug` guard was added
to protect against a potential logic error when returning traits. As it
happens, there are cases, like the one above, where traits can indeed be
returned, so valid code was being rejected.
Fix#80207.
Add a new ABI to support cmse_nonsecure_call
This adds support for the `cmse_nonsecure_call` feature to be able to perform non-secure function call.
See the discussion on Zulip [here](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Support.20for.20callsite.20attributes/near/223054928).
This is a followup to #75810 which added `cmse_nonsecure_entry`. As for that PR, I assume that the changes are small enough to not have to go through a RFC but I don't mind doing one if needed 😃
I did not yet create a tracking issue, but if most of it is fine, I can create one and update the various files accordingly (they refer to the other tracking issue now).
On the Zulip chat, I believe `@jonas-schievink` volunteered to be a reviewer 💯
This commit adds a new ABI to be selected via `extern
"C-cmse-nonsecure-call"` on function pointers in order for the compiler to
apply the corresponding cmse_nonsecure_call callsite attribute.
For Armv8-M targets supporting TrustZone-M, this will perform a
non-secure function call by saving, clearing and calling a non-secure
function pointer using the BLXNS instruction.
See the page on the unstable book for details.
Signed-off-by: Hugues de Valon <hugues.devalon@arm.com>
- This allows us add fake information after handling migrations if
needed.
- Capture analysis also priortizes what we see earlier, which means
fake information should go in last.
2229: Fix issues with move closures and mutability
This PR fixes two issues when feature `capture_disjoint_fields` is used.
1. Can't mutate using a mutable reference
2. Move closures try to move value out through a reference.
To do so, we
1. Compute the mutability of the capture and store it as part of the `CapturedPlace` that is written in TypeckResults
2. Restrict capture precision. Note this is temporary for now, to allow the feature to be used with move closures and ByValue captures and might change depending on discussions with the lang team.
- No Derefs are captured for ByValue captures, since that will result in value behind a reference getting moved.
- No projections are applied to raw pointers since these require unsafe blocks. We capture
them completely.
r? `````@nikomatsakis`````
Edit rustc_typeck top-level docs
Edit punctuation and wording in note on type variables vs. type parameters.
Also add missing punctuation and two inter-doc links.
Stabilize by-value `[T; N]` iterator `core::array::IntoIter`
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65798
This is unblocked now that `min_const_generics` has been stabilized in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79135.
This PR does *not* include the corresponding `IntoIterator` impl, which is https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65819. Instead, an iterator can be constructed through the `new` method.
`new` would become unnecessary when `IntoIterator` is implemented and might be deprecated then, although it will stay stable.
When `capture_disjoint_fields` is not enabled, checking if the root variable
binding is mutable would suffice.
However with the feature enabled, the captured place might be mutable
because it dereferences a mutable reference.
This PR computes the mutability of each capture after capture analysis
in rustc_typeck. We store this in `ty::CapturedPlace` and then use
`ty::CapturedPlace::mutability` in mir_build and borrow_check.
- No Derefs in move closure, this will result in value behind a reference getting moved.
- No projections are applied to raw pointers, since these require unsafe blocks. We capture
them completely.
Motivations for these are recorded here: https://hackmd.io/71qq-IOpTNqzMkPpAI1dVg?view
Avoid describing a method as 'not found' when bounds are unsatisfied
Fixes#76267
When there is a single applicable method candidate, but its trait bounds
are not satisfied, we avoid saying that the method is "not found".
Insted, we update the error message to directly mention which bounds are
not satisfied, rather than mentioning them in a note.
Tweak suggestion for missing field in patterns
Account for parser recovered struct and tuple patterns to avoid invalid
suggestion.
Follow up to #81103.
Refractor a few more types to `rustc_type_ir`
In the continuation of #79169, ~~blocked on that PR~~.
This PR:
- moves `IntVarValue`, `FloatVarValue`, `InferTy` (and friends) and `Variance`
- creates the `IntTy`, `UintTy` and `FloatTy` enums in `rustc_type_ir`, based on their `ast` and `chalk_ir` equilavents, and uses them for types in the rest of the compiler.
~~I will split up that commit to make this easier to review and to have a better commit history.~~
EDIT: done, I split the PR in commits of 200-ish lines each
r? `````@nikomatsakis````` cc `````@jackh726`````
Fixes#76267
When there is a single applicable method candidate, but its trait bounds
are not satisfied, we avoid saying that the method is "not found".
Insted, we update the error message to directly mention which bounds are
not satisfied, rather than mentioning them in a note.
Small refactor in typeck
- `check_impl_items_against_trait` only queries and walks through associated items once
- extracted function that reports errors
- don't check specialization validity when trait item does not match
- small additional cleanups
Gracefully handle loop labels missing leading `'` in different positions
Fix#81192.
* Account for labels when suggesting `loop` instead of `while true`
* Suggest `'a` when given `a` only when appropriate
* Add loop head span to hir
* Tweak error for invalid `break expr`
* Add more misspelled label tests
* Avoid emitting redundant "unused label" lint
* Parse loop labels missing a leading `'`
Each commit can be reviewed in isolation.
don't suggest erroneous trailing comma after `..`
In #76612, suggestions were added for missing fields in patterns. However, the suggestions are being inserted just at the end
of the last field in the pattern—before any trailing comma after the last field. This resulted in the "if you don't care about missing fields" suggestion to recommend code with a trailing comma after the field ellipsis (`..,`), which is actually not legal ("`..` must be at the end and cannot have a trailing comma")!
Incidentally, the doc-comment on `error_unmentioned_fields` was using `you_cant_use_this_field` as an example field name (presumably copy-paste inherited from the description of Issue #76077), but the present author found this confusing, because unmentioned fields aren't necessarily unusable.
The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to `destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderr` doesn't work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found reserved identifier `_`" thing), so you can't really call it a regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR.
Resolves#78511.
r? `@davidtwco` or `@estebank`
