Improve lint for type alias bounds
First of all, I learned just today that I was wrong assuming that the bounds in type aliases are entirely ignored: It turns out they are used to resolve associated types in type aliases. So:
```rust
type T1<U: Bound> = U::Assoc; // compiles
type T2<U> = U::Assoc; // fails
type T3<U> = <U as Bound>::Assoc; // "correct" way to write this, maybe?
```
I am sorry for creating this mess.
This PR changes the wording of the lint accordingly. Moreover, since just removing the bound is no longer always a possible fix, I tried to detect cases like `T1` above and show a helpful message to the user:
```
warning: bounds on generic parameters are not enforced in type aliases
--> $DIR/type-alias-bounds.rs:57:12
|
LL | type T1<U: Bound> = U::Assoc; //~ WARN not enforced in type aliases
| ^^^^^
|
= help: the bound will not be checked when the type alias is used, and should be removed
help: use absolute paths (i.e., <T as Trait>::Assoc) to refer to associated types in type aliases
--> $DIR/type-alias-bounds.rs:57:21
|
LL | type T1<U: Bound> = U::Assoc; //~ WARN not enforced in type aliases
| ^^^^^^^^
```
I am not sure if I got this entirely right. Ideally, we could provide a suggestion involving the correct trait and type name -- however, while I have access to the HIR in the lint, I do not know how to get access to the resolved name information, like which trait `Assoc` belongs to above. The lint does not even run if that resolution fails, so I assume that information is available *somewhere*...
This is a follow-up for (parts of) https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48326. Also see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/21903.
This changes the name of a lint, but that lint was just merged to master yesterday and has never even been on beta.
Replace feature(never_type) with feature(exhaustive_patterns).
feature(exhaustive_patterns) only covers the pattern-exhaustives checks
that used to be covered by feature(never_type)
- `ParamEnv::empty()` -- does not reveal all, good for typeck
- `ParamEnv::reveal_all()` -- does, good for trans
- `param_env.with_reveal_all()` -- converts an existing parameter environment
First of all, the lint is specific for type aliases. Second, it turns out the
bounds are not entirely ignored but actually used when accessing associated
types. So change the wording of the lint, and adapt its name to reality.
The lint has never been on stable or beta, so renaming is safe.
Warn about ignored generic bounds in `for`
This adds a new lint to fix#42181. For consistency and to avoid code duplication, I also moved the existing "bounds in type aliases are ignored" here.
Questions to the reviewer:
* Is it okay to just remove a diagnostic error code like this? Should I instead keep the warning about type aliases where it is? The old code provided a detailed explanation of what's going on when asked, that information is now lost. On the other hand, `span_warn!` seems deprecated (after this patch, it has exactly one user left!).
* Did I miss any syntactic construct that can appear as `for` in the surface syntax? I covered function types (`for<'a> fn(...)`), generic traits (`for <'a> Fn(...)`, can appear both as bounds as as trait objects) and bounds (`for<'a> F: ...`).
* For the sake of backwards compatibility, this adds a warning, not an error. @nikomatsakis suggested an error in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42181#issuecomment-306924389, but I feel that can only happen in a new epoch -- right?
Cc @eddyb
Also move the check for not having type parameters into ast_validation.
I was not sure what to do with compile-fail/issue-23046.rs: The issue looks like
maybe the bounds actually played a role in triggering the ICE, but that seems
unlikely given that the compiler seems to entirely ignore them. However, I
couldn't find a testcase without the bounds, so I figured the best I could do is
to just remove the bounds and make sure at least that keeps working.
Suggest type for overflowing bin/hex-literals
Fixes#48073
For hexadecimal and binary literals, which overflow, it gives an additional note to the warning message, like in this [comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48073#issuecomment-365370113).
Additionally it will suggest a type (`X < Y`):
- `iX`: if literal fits in `uX` => `uX`, else => `iY`
- `-iX` => `iY`
- `uX` => `uY`
Exceptions: `isize`, `usize`. I don't think you can make a good suggestion here. The programmer has to figure it out on it's own in this case.
r? @oli-obk
Support parentheses in patterns under feature gate
This is a prerequisite for any other extensions to pattern syntax - `|` with multiple patterns, type ascription, `..PAT` in slice patterns.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/554
It's unhelpful since raw pointers to trait objects are also FFI-unsafe and casting to a thin raw pointer loses the vtable. There are working solutions that _involve_ raw pointers but they're too complex to explain in one line and have serious trade offs.
The suggestion is unconditional, so following it could lead to further errors. This is already the case for the repr(C) suggestion, which makes this acceptable, though not *good*. Checking up-front whether the suggestion can help would be great but applies more broadly (and would require some refactoring to avoid duplicating the checks).
- Always name the non-FFI-safe
- Explain *why* the type is not FFI-safe
- Stop vaguely gesturing at structs/enums/unions if the non-FFI-safe types occured in a field.
The last part is arguably a regression, but it's minor now that the non-FFI-safe type is actually named. Removing it avoids some code duplication.
This dates back to at least #26583. At the time, usize and isize were considered ffi-unsafe to nudge people away from them, but this changed in the aforementioned PR, making it inconsistent to complain about it in enum discriminants. In fact, repr(usize) is probably the best way to interface with `enum Foo : size_t { ... }`.
