Implementation of GATs outlives lint
See #87479 for background. Closes#87479
The basic premise of this lint/error is to require the user to write where clauses on a GAT when those bounds can be implied or proven from any function on the trait returning that GAT.
## Intuitive Explanation (Attempt) ##
Let's take this trait definition as an example:
```rust
trait Iterable {
type Item<'x>;
fn iter<'a>(&'a self) -> Self::Item<'a>;
}
```
Let's focus on the `iter` function. The first thing to realize is that we know that `Self: 'a` because of `&'a self`. If an impl wants `Self::Item` to contain any data with references, then those references must be derived from `&'a self`. Thus, they must live only as long as `'a`. Furthermore, because of the `Self: 'a` implied bound, they must live only as long as `Self`. Since it's `'a` is used in place of `'x`, it is reasonable to assume that any value of `Self::Item<'x>`, and thus `'x`, will only be able to live as long as `Self`. Therefore, we require this bound on `Item` in the trait.
As another example:
```rust
trait Deserializer<T> {
type Out<'x>;
fn deserialize<'a>(&self, input: &'a T) -> Self::Out<'a>;
}
```
The intuition is similar here, except rather than a `Self: 'a` implied bound, we have a `T: 'a` implied bound. Thus, the data on `Self::Out<'a>` is derived from `&'a T`, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the lifetime `'x` will always be less than `T`.
## Implementation Algorithm ##
* Given a GAT `<P0 as Trait<P1..Pi>>::G<Pi...Pn>` declared as `trait T<A1..Ai> for A0 { type G<Ai...An>; }` used in return type of one associated function `F`
* Given env `E` (including implied bounds) for `F`
* For each lifetime parameter `'a` in `P0...Pn`:
* For each other type parameter `Pi != 'a` in `P0...Pn`: // FIXME: this include of lifetime parameters too
* If `E => (P: 'a)`:
* Require where clause `Ai: 'a`
## Follow-up questions ##
* What should we do when we don't pass params exactly?
For this example:
```rust
trait Des {
type Out<'x, D>;
fn des<'z, T>(&self, data: &'z Wrap<T>) -> Self::Out<'z, Wrap<T>>;
}
```
Should we be requiring a `D: 'x` clause? We pass `Wrap<T>` as `D` and `'z` as `'x`, and should be able to prove that `Wrap<T>: 'z`.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #89942 (Reorder `widening_impl`s to make the doc clearer)
- #90569 (Fix tests using `only-i686` to use the correct `only-x86` directive)
- #90597 (Warn for variables that are no longer captured)
- #90623 (Remove more checks for LLVM < 12)
- #90626 (Properly register text_direction_codepoint_in_comment lint.)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Properly register text_direction_codepoint_in_comment lint.
This makes it known to the compiler so it can be configured like with `#![allow(text_direction_codepoint_in_comment)]`.
Fixes#90614.
Fix ICE when rustdoc is scraping examples inside of a proc macro
This PR provides a clearer semantics for how --scrape-examples interacts with macros. If an expression's span AND it's enclosing item's span both are not `from_expansion`, then the example will be scraped. The added test case `rustdoc-scrape-examples-macros` shows a variety of situations.
* A macro-rules macro that takes a function call as input: good
* A macro-rules macro that generates a function call as output: bad
* A proc-macro that generates a function call as output: bad
* An attribute macro that generates a function call as output: bad
* An attribute macro that takes a function call as input: good, if the proc macro is designed to propagate the input spans
I ran this updated rustdoc on pyo3 and confirmed that it successfully scrapes examples from inside a proc macro, eg
<img width="1013" alt="Screen Shot 2021-11-04 at 1 11 28 PM" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/663326/140412691-81a3bb6b-a448-4a1b-a293-f7a795553634.png">
(cc `@mejrs)`
Additionally, this PR fixes an ordering bug in the highlighting logic.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90567.
r? `@jyn514`
Re-export some iterators from `core` in `std`
These iterators seem to have been forgotten to be re-exported from `std` (through `alloc`)
These are stable:
`core::slice::{SplitInclusive, SplitInclusiveMut}`
This one is still unstable:
`core::slice::EscapeAscii` (cc #77174)
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #90507 (Suggest `extern crate alloc` when using undeclared module `alloc`)
- #90530 (Simplify js tester a bit)
- #90533 (Add note about x86 instruction prefixes in asm! to unstable book)
- #90537 (Update aarch64 `target_feature` list for LLVM 12.)
- #90544 (Demote metadata load warning to "info".)
- #90554 (Clean up some `-Z unstable-options` in tests.)
- #90556 (Add more text and examples to `carrying_{add|mul}`)
- #90563 (rustbot allow labels)
- #90571 (Fix missing bottom border for headings in sidebar)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rustbot allow labels
`relnotes` was inspired by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/90521 , and by the various `must_use` PRs; in all of those cases, the submitter of the PR could know that `relnotes` applied, but couldn't apply it themselves.
For `needs-fcp`, I think people should be able to help triage by observing that a change needs an FCP before we can apply it.
Clean up some `-Z unstable-options` in tests.
Several of these tests were for features that have been stabilized, or otherwise don't need `-Z unstable-options`.
Demote metadata load warning to "info".
There is a warn log message for whenever the crate loader fails to load metadata from a candidate file. I think this warning is too aggressive, as there are several situations where metadata information might not be found in a candidate file, which is normal. Also, this warning is somewhat confusing, and non-actionable in most cases for a user (most users will not know what it means).
If the crate loader ultimately does not find a valid crate, then an error will be reported (and hopefully #88368 will improve that error message).
If a rustc developer wants to debug a loader problem, they can still use `RUSTC_LOG=rustc_metadata=debug` and get the details.
There is more discussion of this particular warning at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89795#issuecomment-940798190.
Fixes#90525
Update aarch64 `target_feature` list for LLVM 12.
Many of these feature are now available on all valid LLVM versions.
I've also added a few new ones to the list.
r? `@Amanieu`
Add note about x86 instruction prefixes in asm! to unstable book
Since rustc doesn't do the assembly parsing itself, it is unable to detect when inline assembly ends with an instruction prefix, which doesn't make sense since it would apply to instructions from the compiler. This fixes#82314 by mentioning that x86 instruction prefixes must not be used in inline assembly. AFAICT x86 is the only instruction set with instruction prefixes.
