Preserve substs in opaques recorded in typeck results
This means that we now prepopulate MIR with opaques with the right substs.
The first commit is a hack that I think we discussed, having to do with `DefiningAnchor::Bubble` basically being equivalent to `DefiningAnchor::Error` in the new solver, so having to use `DefiningAnchor::Bind` instead, lol.
r? `@lcnr`
we can otherwise assign a hidden type to the opaque which
causes ICE if we don't use `take_opaque_types` during
coherence. This is annoying so I didn't bother. Added a test
showing the behavior this prevents.
Note user-facing types of coercion failure
When coercing, for example, `Box<A>` into `Box<dyn B>`, make sure that any failure notes mention *those* specific types, rather than mentioning inner types, like "the cast from `A` to `dyn B`".
I expect end-users are often confused when we skip layers of types and only mention the "innermost" part of a coercion, especially when other notes point at HIR, e.g. #111406.
Define the `named_static_lifetimes` lint
This lint will replace the existing hard-warning.
Replace the named static lifetime hard-warning with the new lint
Update the UI tests for the `named_static_lifetimes` lint
Remove the direct dependency on `rustc_lint_defs`
fix build
Signed-off-by: Zhi Qi <qizhi@pingcap.com>
use "UNUSED_LIFETIMES" instead
Signed-off-by: Zhi Qi <qizhi@pingcap.com>
update 1 test and fix typo
Signed-off-by: Zhi Qi <qizhi@pingcap.com>
update tests
Signed-off-by: Zhi Qi <qizhi@pingcap.com>
fix tests: add extra blank line
Signed-off-by: Zhi Qi <qizhi@pingcap.com>
Most tests involving save-analysis were removed, but I kept a few where
the `-Zsave-analysis` was an add-on to the main thing being tested,
rather than the main thing being tested.
For `x.py install`, the `rust-analysis` target has been removed.
For `x.py dist`, the `rust-analysis` target has been kept in a
degenerate form: it just produces a single file `reduced.json`
indicating that save-analysis has been removed. This is necessary for
rustup to keep working.
Closes#43606.
Considering the following code
```rust
fn foo() -> u8 {
async fn async_fn() -> u8 { 22 }
async_fn()
}
fn main() {}
```
the error generated before this commit from the compiler is
```
➜ rust git:(macros/async_fn_suggestion) ✗ rustc test.rs --edition 2021
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found opaque type
|
= note: expected type `u8`
found opaque type `impl Future<Output = u8>`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
In this case the error is nor perfect, and can confuse the user
that do not know that the opaque type is the future.
So this commit will propose (and conclude the work start in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80658)
to change the string `opaque type` to `future` when applicable
and also remove the Expected vs Received note by adding a more
specific one regarding the async function that return a future type.
So the new error emitted by the compiler is
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found future
|
note: calling an async function returns a future
--> test.rs:4:5
|
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
Remove confusing 'while checking' note from opaque future type mismatches
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the wording of the note. The only value I can see in this note is that it points out where the async's opaque future is coming from, but the way it's doing it is misleading IMO.
For example:
```rust
note: while checking the return type of the `async fn`
--> $DIR/dont-suggest-missing-await.rs:7:24
|
LL | async fn make_u32() -> u32 {
| ^^^ checked the `Output` of this `async fn`, found opaque type
```
We point at the type `u32` in the HIR, but then say "found opaque type". We also say "while checking"... but we're typechecking a totally different function when we get this type mismatch!
r? ``@estebank`` but feel free to reassign and/or take your time reviewing this. I'd be inclined to also discuss reworking the presentation of this type mismatch to restore some of these labels in a way that makes it more clear what it's trying to point out.
Don't treat closures from other crates as local
fixes#104817
r? `@lcnr`
Specialization can prefer an impl for an opaque type over a blanket impls that also matches. If the blanket impl only applies if an auto-trait applies, we look at the hidden type of the opaque type to see if that implements the auto trait. The hidden type can be a closure or generator, and thus we will end up seeing these types in coherence and have to handle them properly.
