#53840: Consolidate pattern check errors
#53840 on this PR we are aggregating `cannot bind by-move and by-ref in the same pattern` message present on the different lines into one diagnostic message. Here we are first gathering those `spans` on `vector` then we are throwing them with the help of `MultiSpan`
r? @estebank
Addresses: #53480
we are consolidating `cannot bind by-move and by-ref in the same
pattern` message present on the different lines into single diagnostic
message.
To do this, we are first gathering those spans into the vector
after that we are throwing them with the help of MultiSpan in
a separate block.
Addresses: #53840
Note it requires MIR-borrowck to be enabled to actually do anything.
Note also that it implicitly turns off our AST-based check for
mutation in guards.
First step towards `u128` instead of `Const` in `PatternKind::Range`
This PR accomplishes two things:
* It adds `ty::Ty` to `PatternKind::Range`. The extra type information will make it easier to remove it from the `hi` and `lo` members.
* It exchanges `Const` for `u128` in `Constructor::ConstantRange`.
fix `is_non_exhaustive` confusion between structs and enums
Structs and enums can both be non-exhaustive, with a very different
meaning. This PR splits `is_non_exhaustive` to 2 separate functions - 1
for structs, and another for enums, and fixes the places that got the
usage confused.
Fixes#53549.
r? @eddyb
Various small diagnostic and code clean up
- Point at def span on incorrect `panic` or `oom` function
- Use structured suggestion instead of note for `+=` that can be performed on a dereference of the left binding
- Small code formatting cleanup
refactor match guard
This is the first step to implement RFC 2294: if-let-guard. Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51114
The second step should be introducing another variant `IfLet` in the Guard enum. I separated them into 2 PRs for the convenience of reviewers.
r? @petrochenkov
Structs and enums can both be non-exhaustive, with a very different
meaning. This PR splits `is_non_exhaustive` to 2 separate functions - 1
for structs, and another for enums, and fixes the places that got the
usage confused.
Fixes#53549.
* Value gets renamed to Operand, so that now interpret::{Place, Operand} are the
"dynamic" versions of mir::{Place, Operand}.
* Operand and Place share the data for their "stuff is in memory"-base in a new
type, MemPlace. This also makes it possible to give some more precise types
in other areas. Both Operand and MemPlace have methods available to project
into fields (and other kinds of projections) without causing further
allocations.
* The type for "a Scalar or a ScalarPair" is called Value, and again used to
give some more precise types.
* All of these have versions with an attached layout, so that we can more often
drag the layout along instead of recomputing it. This lets us get rid of
`PlaceExtra::Downcast`. MPlaceTy and PlaceTy can only be constructed
in place.rs, making sure the layout is handled properly.
(The same should eventually be done for ValTy and OpTy.)
* All the high-level functions to write typed memory take a Place, and live in
place.rs. All the high-level typed functions to read typed memory take an
Operand, and live in operands.rs.
