NOTE: I was careful to make each change in a manner that preserves the
existing diagnostic output (usually by ensuring that no lines were
added or removed). This means that the resulting source files are not
as nice to read as they were at the start. But we will have to review
these cases by hand anyway as follow-up work, so cleanup could
reasonably happen then (or not at all).
Modify compile-fail/E0389 error message WIP
This fixes#47388
cc @nikomatsakis @estebank
r? @nikomatsakis
Certain ui tests were failing locally. I'll check if the same happens here too.
Building for x86_64-unknown-linux-musl currently results in an executable lacking debug information for musl libc itself. If you request a backtrace in GDB while control flow is within musl – including sycalls made by musl – the result looks like:
#0 0x0000000000434b46 in __cp_end ()
#1 0x0000000000432dbd in __syscall_cp_c ()
#2 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
i.e. not very helpful. Adding --enable-debug resolves this, and --enable-optimize re-enables optimisations which default to off given the previous flag.
chalkify: Implement lowering rule Implied-Bound-From-Trait
For #49177.
TODO:
- [x] Implement where clauses besides trait and projection predicates
- [x] Is the output of the `lower_trait_higher_rank` test correct?
- [ ] Remove `Self::Trait` from the query `tcx.predicates_of(<trait_id>).predicates`
- [ ] Consider moving tests to compile-fail to make them more manageable
std: Be sure to modify atomics in tests
See #49775 for some more information but it looks like this is working around an
LLVM bug for the time being.
Closes#49775
In issue #49588, Michael Lamparski pointed out a scenario in which the
non-shorthand-field-patterns lint could be triggered by a macro-expanded
pattern, in a way which was direly unwieldy for the macro author to guard
against and unreasonable to expect the macro user to take into account. We can
avoid this by not linting patterns that come from macro-expansions. Although
this entails accepting "false negatives" where the lint could genuinely improve
macro-templated code, avoiding the reported "true-but-super-annoying positive"
may be worth the trade? (Some precedent for these relative priorities exists as
no. 47775 (5985b0b0).)
Resolves#49588.
Impressing confused Python users with magical diagnostics is perhaps
worth this not-grossly-unreasonable (only 40ish lines) extra complexity
in the parser?
Thanks to Vadim Petrochenkov for guidance.
This resolves#46836.
