The assertion in `assert-long-condition.rs` used to be fail like this, all on
one line:
```
thread 'main' panicked at 'assertion failed: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18\n + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 == 0', tests/ui/macros/assert-long-condition.rs:7:5
```
The `\n` and subsequent indent is because the condition is pretty-printed, and
the pretty-printer inserts a newline. Printing the newline in this way is
arguably reasonable given that the message appears within single quotes, which
is very similar to a string literal.
However, after the assertion printing improvements that were released in 1.73,
the assertion now fails like this:
```
thread 'main' panicked at tests/ui/macros/assert-long-condition.rs:7:5:
assertion failed: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18\n + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 == 0
```
Now that there are no single quotes around the pretty-printed condition, the
`\n` is quite strange.
This commit gets rid of the `\n`, by removing the `escape_debug` done on the
pretty-printed message. This results in the following:
```
thread 'main' panicked at tests/ui/macros/assert-long-condition.rs:7:5:
assertion failed: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18
+ 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 == 0
```
The overly-large indent is still strange, but that's a separate pretty-printing issue.
This change helps with #108341.
Extend `impl`'s `def_span` to include its where clauses
Typically, we highlight the def-span of an impl in a diagnostic due to either:
1. coherence error
2. trait evaluation cycle
3. invalid implementation of built-in trait
I find that an impl's where clauses are very often required to understanding why these errors come about, which is unfortunate since where clauses may be located on different lines and don't show up in the error. This PR expands the def-span of impls to include these where clauses.
r? cjgillot since you've touched this code a while back to make some spans shorter, but you can also reassign to wg-diagnostics or compiler if you're busy or have no strong opinions.
Add RUSTFLAGS_BOOTSTRAP to RUSTFLAGS for bootstrap compilation
Adds `RUSTFLAGS_BOOTSTRAP` to `RUSTFLAGS` for bootstrap compilation when `RUSTFLAGS_BOOTSTRAP` exists in the environment. With this PR, `RUSTFLAGS_BOOTSTRAP` will affect every build(as we already do for rustc and std) compiled with stage0 compiler.
Resolves#94234
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #115882 (improve the suggestion of `generic_bound_failure`)
- #116537 (Fix suggestion span involving wrongly placed generic arg on variant)
- #116543 (In smir `find_crates` returns `Vec<Crate>` instead of `Option<Crate>`)
- #116549 (Simplify some mir passes by using let chains)
- #116556 (Sync rustc_codegen_cranelift)
- #116561 (Add a test for fixed ICE)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Sync rustc_codegen_cranelift
The highlights this time are improved simd and inline asm support, `is_x86_feature_detected!()` returning the actual cpu features when inline asm support is enabled and a couple of bug fixes.
r? ```@ghost```
```@rustbot``` label +A-codegen +A-cranelift +T-compiler +subtree-sync
Fix suggestion span involving wrongly placed generic arg on variant
Fixes#116473
The span computation was wrong. It went from the end of the variant to the end of the (wrongly placed) args. However, the variant lived in a different expansion and this resulted in a nonsensical span that overlaps with another and thereby leads to the ICE.
In the fix I've changed span computation to not be based on the location of the variant, but purely on the location of the args. I simply extend the start of the args span 2 positions to the left and that includes the `::` and that's all we need apparently.
This approach produces a correct span regardless of which macro/expansion the args reside in and where the variant is.
improve the suggestion of `generic_bound_failure`
- Fixes#115375
- suggest the bound in the correct scope: trait or impl header vs assoc item. See `tests/ui/suggestions/lifetimes/type-param-bound-scope.rs`
- don't suggest a lifetime name that conflicts with the other late-bound regions of the function:
```rust
type Inv<'a> = *mut &'a ();
fn check_bound<'a, T: 'a>(_: T, _: Inv<'a>) {}
fn test<'a, T>(_: &'a str, t: T, lt: Inv<'_>) { // suggests a new name `'a`
check_bound(t, lt); //~ ERROR
}
```
[rustdoc] Show enum discrimant if it is a C-like variant
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101337.
We currently display values for associated constant items in traits:
And we also display constant values like [here](file:///home/imperio/rust/rust/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/doc/std/f32/consts/constant.E.html).
I think that for coherency, we should display values of C-like enum variants.
With this change, it looks like this:
As for the display of the constant value itself, I used what we already have to keep coherency.
We display the C-like variants value in the following scenario:
1. It is a C-like variant with a value set => all the time
2. It is a C-like variant without a value set: All other variants are C-like variants and at least one them has its value set.
Here is the result in code:
```rust
// Ax and Bx value will be displayed.
enum A {
Ax = 12,
Bx,
}
// Ax and Bx value will not be displayed
enum B {
Ax,
Bx,
}
// Bx value will not be displayed
enum C {
Ax(u32),
Bx,
}
// Bx value will not be displayed, Cx value will be displayed.
#[repr(u32)]
enum D {
Ax(u32),
Bx,
Cx = 12,
}
```
r? `@notriddle`
