Part of #24407.
Currently the diagnostics for range patterns are a bit wrong:
```rust
fn main() {
match 5u32 {
0 ... 10 => (),
'a' ... 10 => (),
10 ... 'z' => (),
"what" ... 10 => (),
"what" ... "well" => (),
10 ... "what" => ()
}
}
```
```
range.rs:4:9: 4:19 error: mismatched types in range:
expected integral variable,
found char [E0211]
range.rs:4 'a' ... 10 => (),
^~~~~~~~~~
range.rs:4:9: 4:16 error: only char and numeric types are allowed in range [E0029]
range.rs:4 'a' ... 10 => (),
^~~~~~~
range.rs:4:9: 4:19 error: mismatched types:
expected `u32`,
found `char`
(expected u32,
found char) [E0308]
range.rs:4 'a' ... 10 => (),
^~~~~~~~~~
range.rs:5:9: 5:19 error: mismatched types in range:
expected char,
found integral variable [E0211]
range.rs:5 10 ... 'z' => (),
^~~~~~~~~~
range.rs:5:9: 5:15 error: only char and numeric types are allowed in range [E0029]
range.rs:5 10 ... 'z' => (),
^~~~~~
range.rs:6:9: 6:22 error: mismatched types in range:
expected integral variable,
found &-ptr [E0211]
range.rs:6 "what" ... 10 => (),
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
range.rs:6:9: 6:19 error: only char and numeric types are allowed in range [E0029]
range.rs:6 "what" ... 10 => (),
^~~~~~~~~~
range.rs:6:9: 6:22 error: mismatched types:
expected `u32`,
found `&'static str`
(expected u32,
found &-ptr) [E0308]
range.rs:6 "what" ... 10 => (),
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
range.rs:7:9: 7:19 error: only char and numeric types are allowed in range [E0029]
range.rs:7 "what" ... "well" => (),
^~~~~~~~~~
range.rs:7:9: 7:26 error: mismatched types:
expected `u32`,
found `&'static str`
(expected u32,
found &-ptr) [E0308]
range.rs:7 "what" ... "well" => (),
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
range.rs:8:9: 8:22 error: mismatched types in range:
expected &-ptr,
found integral variable [E0211]
range.rs:8 10 ... "what" => ()
^~~~~~~~~~~~~
range.rs:8:9: 8:15 error: only char and numeric types are allowed in range [E0029]
range.rs:8 10 ... "what" => ()
^~~~~~
error: aborting due to 12 previous errors
```
The problems here are:
1. The type of the end of the range is used to predict the type of the start (only mildly counter intuitive).
2. E0029 is erroneously generated for `char ... num` and `num ... char`.
2. `u32` is mentioned.
3. Errors which are essentially the same are reported multiple times.
I've attempted to fix this by checking the requirements in a different order. The output I've achieved for the above example is:
```
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:4:17: 4:22 error: mismatched types in range:
expected char,
found integral variable [E0211]
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:4 'a' ... 10 => (),
^~~~~
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:5:16: 5:22 error: mismatched types in range:
expected integral variable,
found char [E0211]
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:5 10 ... 'z' => (),
^~~~~~
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:6:9: 6:19 error: only char and numeric types are allowed in range [E0029]
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:6 "what" ... 10 => (),
^~~~~~~~~~
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:6:9: 6:19 help: run `rustc --explain E0029` to see a detailed explanation
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:6:9: 6:19 note: Start type: &'static str
End type: _
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:6 "what" ... 10 => (),
^~~~~~~~~~
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:7:9: 7:26 error: only char and numeric types are allowed in range [E0029]
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:7 "what" ... "well" => (),
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:7:9: 7:26 help: run `rustc --explain E0029` to see a detailed explanation
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:7:9: 7:26 note: Start type: &'static str
End type: &'static str
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:7 "what" ... "well" => (),
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:8:16: 8:25 error: only char and numeric types are allowed in range [E0029]
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:8 10 ... "what" => ()
^~~~~~~~~
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:8:16: 8:25 help: run `rustc --explain E0029` to see a detailed explanation
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:8:16: 8:25 note: Start type: _
End type: &'static str
/home/michael/Temp/range.rs:8 10 ... "what" => ()
^~~~~~~~~
error: aborting due to 5 previous errors
```
I think this is already tonnes better, but the `Start type/End type` stuff could be neater. I don't think there's really any need to start a `note:` block but I wanted to get some feedback on this. I'd also appreciate advice on how to print the integer types as something other than `_`.
Changes:
- adds explanations for E0185, E0186, E0202, E0326
- fixes the explanation for E0053. The previous description was too narrow; there are other error cases.
- changes the error message for E0202 to be specific for associated types, since it seems inherent associated constants are implemented.
Part of #24407
Closes#25046 (by rejecting the code that causes the ICE) and #24946. I haven't been able to deal with the array size or recursion issues yet for associated consts, though my hope was that the change I made for range match patterns might help with array sizes, too.
This PR is pretty much orthogonal to #25065.
- add feature gate
- add basic tests
- adjust parser to eliminate conflict between `const fn` and associated
constants
- allow `const fn` in traits/trait-impls, but forbid later in type check
- correct some merge conflicts
I think I didn't run tests properly - my second call to
select_all_obligations_or_error has made 3 tests fail. However, this is
just an error message change - integer fallback never worked with casts.
This should hopefully fix all cast-related ICEs once and for all.
I managed to make diagnostics hate me and give me spurious "decoder error"
- removing $build/tmp/extended-errors seems to fix it.
Constants with values that depend on generic parameters or `Self` cause
ICEs in `check_const`, and are not yet accepted via RFC, so we need to
throw a proper error in these cases.
A built-in feature enabling the dereferencing of newtype structs was removed
in PR #11188, and this error (E0068) was added at the same time to warn of
its removal. It seems to make sense to remove the error now, given that
the obsolete feature it is warning about was removed nearly a year and a
half ago.
Using regular pointer arithmetic to iterate collections of zero-sized types
doesn't work, because we'd get the same pointer all the time. Our
current solution is to convert the pointer to an integer, add an offset
and then convert back, but this inhibits certain optimizations.
What we should do instead is to convert the pointer to one that points
to an i8\*, and then use a LLVM GEP instructions without the inbounds
flag to perform the pointer arithmetic. This allows to generate pointers
that point outside allocated objects without causing UB (as long as you
don't dereference them), and it wraps around using two's complement,
i.e. it behaves exactly like the wrapping_* operations we're currently
using, with the added benefit of LLVM being able to better optimize the
resulting IR.
Using regular pointer arithmetic to iterate collections of zero-sized types
doesn't work, because we'd get the same pointer all the time. Our
current solution is to convert the pointer to an integer, add an offset
and then convert back, but this inhibits certain optimizations.
What we should do instead is to convert the pointer to one that points
to an i8*, and then use a LLVM GEP instructions without the inbounds
flag to perform the pointer arithmetic. This allows to generate pointers
that point outside allocated objects without causing UB (as long as you
don't dereference them), and it wraps around using two's complement,
i.e. it behaves exactly like the wrapping_* operations we're currently
using, with the added benefit of LLVM being able to better optimize the
resulting IR.
