More robust fallback for `use` suggestion
Our old way to suggest where to add `use`s would first look for pre-existing `use`s in the relevant crate/module, and if there are *no* uses, it would fallback on trying to use another item as the basis for the suggestion.
But this was fragile, as illustrated in issue #87613
This PR instead identifies span of the first token after any inner attributes, and uses *that* as the fallback for the `use` suggestion.
Fix#87613
check ~Projection~ all supertrait bounds when confirming dyn candidate
I'm pretty sure Projection is the only other PredicateKind that we care about enforcing here.
Fixes#80800
Improve `expect` impl and handle `#[expect(unfulfilled_lint_expectations)]` (RFC 2383)
This PR updates unstable `ExpectationIds` in stashed diagnostics and adds some asserts to ensure that the stored expectations are really empty in the end. Additionally, it handles the `#[expect(unfulfilled_lint_expectations)]` case.
According to the [Errors and lints docs](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/diagnostics.html#diagnostic-levels) the `error` level should only be used _"when the compiler detects a problem that makes it unable to compile the program"_. As this isn't the case with `#[expect(unfulfilled_lint_expectations)]` I decided to only create a warning. To avoid adding a new lint only for this case, I simply emit a `unfulfilled_lint_expectations` diagnostic with an additional note.
---
r? `@wesleywiser` I'm requesting a review from you since you reviewed the previous PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87835. You are welcome to reassign it if you're busy 🙃
rfc: [RFC-2383](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2383-lint-reasons.html)
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85549
cc: `@flip1995` In case you're also interested in this :)
Type params and assoc types have unit metadata if they are sized
Extend the logic in `Pointee` projection to ensure that we can satisfy `<T as Pointee>::Metadata = ()` if `T: Sized`.
cc: `@SimonSapin` and #93959
Add riscv32im-unknown-none-elf built-in target triple.
* Add built-in target `riscv32im-unknown-none-elf`.
* Update `platform-support.md` to list it as a Tier 3 target.
Below are details on how this target meets the requirements for tier 3:
> A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
I would be willing to be a target maintainer, though I would appreciate if others with more experience around RISC-V volunteered to help with that as well.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important even for a tier 3 target.
Uses the same naming as the LLVM target, and the same convention as many other bare-metal targets.
> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to disambiguate it.
I don't believe there is any ambiguity here.
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
I don't see any legal issues here.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
> If the target supports building host tools (such as rustc or cargo), those host tools must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries, other than ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other binaries built for the target. For instance, rustc built for the target may depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library, but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
> Targets should not require proprietary (non-FOSS) components to link a functional binary or library.
> "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous" legal/licensing terms include but are not limited to: non-disclosure requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms, requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its developers or users.
I see no issues with any of the above.
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
Only relevant to those making approval decisions.
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
`core` and `alloc` can be used. `std` cannot be used as this is a bare-metal target.
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
Use `--target=x86_64-unknown-none-elf` option to cross compile, just like any target. The target does not support running tests.
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via `@)` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.
I don't foresee this being a problem.
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
No other targets should be affected by the pull request.
Identify anonymous lifetimes by their DefId in HIR.
`ParamName::Fresh` currently identifies anonymous lifetimes by an `usize` index computed from the number of lifetimes in scope. This makes the behaviour of lowering dependent on the contents of the surrounding item in unpredictable ways.
This PR replaces this index by the `LocalDefId` of the synthetized generic lifetime parameter. This makes obvious which parameter the lifetime corresponds to.
Fix exposing fields marked unstable or doc hidden
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89837
Work towards https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89554
Filter fields that are marked `doc(hidden)` or are unstable with that feature turned off. This brings structs and enums into alignment behavior-wise when emitting warning/errors about pattern exhaustiveness/reachability.
cc `@Nadrieril`
Return early to fix ICE
This fixes#94627, ICE happens because compiler tries to suggest constraining type parameter but the only constraint is implicit `std::Sized` one, so it gets removed and there is nothing to suggest resulting in ICE.
diagnostics: do not spurriously claim something is "not an iterator"
Fixes a minor regression caused by #94746, where `iter::Filter` is spurriously declared "not an iterator."
Improve `AdtDef` interning.
This commit makes `AdtDef` use `Interned`. Much of the commit is tedious
changes to introduce getter functions. The interesting changes are in
`compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/adt.rs`.
r? `@fee1-dead`
CTFE/Miri: detect out-of-bounds pointers in offset_from
Also I became uneasy with aggressively doing `try_to_int` here -- this will always succeed on Miri, leading to the wrong codepath being taken. We should rather try to convert them both to pointers, and use the integer path as a fallback, so that's what I implemented now.
Hiding whitespaces helps with the diff.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/1950
r? ``@oli-obk``
Change several HashMaps to IndexMap to improve incremental hashing performance
Stable hashing hash maps in incremental mode takes a lot of time, especially for some benchmarks like `clap`. As noted by `@Mark-Simulacrum` [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/89404#issuecomment-950043892), this cost could be reduced by replacing some hash maps by indexmaps.
I gathered some statistics and found several hash maps that took a lot of time to hash and replaced them by indexmaps. However, in order for this to work, we need to make sure that these indexmaps have deterministic insertion order. These three are used only in visitors as far as I can see, which seems deterministic. Can we enforce this somehow? Or should some explaining comment be included for these maps?
The current structure makes it hard to tell that there are just four
distinct code paths, depending on how many items there are in `bb_items`
and `next_items`. This commit introduces a `match` that clarifies
things.
This commit makes `AdtDef` use `Interned`. Much the commit is tedious
changes to introduce getter functions. The interesting changes are in
`compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/adt.rs`.
