[NLL] Improve "borrow later used here" messages
* In the case of two conflicting borrows, the later used message says which borrow it's referring to
* If the later use is a function call (from the users point of view) say that the later use is for the call. Point just to the function.
r? @pnkfelix
Closes#48643
Introduce `TyKind::UnnormalizedProjection`
Introduce a new variant used for lazy normalization in chalk integration. Mostly `bug!` everywhere.
r? @nikomatsakis
A handful of cleanups for rustc/mir
- use the "regular" `into()` instead of `graphviz::IntoCow` in `mod.rs`
- `format!("{}", x)` > `x.to_string()`
- remove one unnecessary `String` allocation
- shorten the logic of one loop
- `assert!(x == y)` > `assert_eq!(x, y)`
- whitespace & formatting fixes
r? @oli-obk
Remove duplicate predicates in `explicit_predicates_of`
I took a more brutal approach than described in #52187. I could have used the `linked_hash_map` crate but this seems overkill, especially as we need a vec storage in the end.
r? @nikomatsakis
abolish ICE when pretty-printing async block
@jnetterf reported an ICE when the unused-parentheses lint triggered around an async block (#54752). In order to compose an autofixable suggestion, the lint invokes the pretty-printer on the unnecessarily-parenthesized expression. (One wonders why the lint doesn't just use `SourceMap::span_to_snippet` instead, to preserve the formatting of the original source?—but to answer that, you'd have to ask the author of 5c9f806d.)
But then the pretty-printer panics when trying to call `<pprust::State as PrintState>::end` when `State.boxes` is empty. Empirically, the problem would seem to be solved if we start some "boxes" beforehand in the `ast::ExprKind::Async` arm of the big match in `print_expr_outer_attr_style`, exactly like we do in the immediately-preceding match arm for `ast::ExprKind::Block`—it would seem pretty ("pretty") reasonable for the pretty-printing of async blocks to work a lot like the pretty-printing of ordinary non-async blocks, right??
Of course, it would be shamefully cargo-culty to commit code on the basis of this kind of mere reasoning-by-analogy (in contrast to understanding the design of the pretty-printer in such detail that the correctness of the patch is comprehended with all the lucid certainty of mathematical proof, rather than being merely surmised by intuition). But maybe we care more about fixing the bug with high probability today, than with certainty in some indefinite hypothetical future? Maybe the effort is worth [a fifth of a shirt](https://hacktoberfest.digitalocean.com/stats/zackmdavis)??
Humbly resolves#54752.
r? @cramertj
Update a FIXME in memory.rs
In #51833, I improved the performance of `copy_undef_mask()`. As such, the old FIXME wasn't appropriate anymore. The main remaining thing left to do is to implement a fast path for non-overlapping copies (per @oli-obk).
r? @oli-obk
Make spec_extend use for_each()
`for_each` will use an iterator's own implementation of `try_fold`, which I understand to be generally preferable (because nested iterator adapter's will use each other's `try_fold` and be designed for the specific adaptation in a way that promotes performance and inlining.
Add doc for impl From for Std Error
As part of issue #51430 (cc @skade).
I am not sure if it is going to a correct direction so put up here so that people can comment.
Limit the promotion of const fns to the libstd and the `rustc_promotable` attribute
There are so many questions around promoting const fn calls... it seems saner to try to limit automatic promotion to const fns which were explicitly opted in for promotion.
I added the attribute to all public stable const fns that were already promotable (e.g. not Cell::new) in order to not cause any breakage
r? @eddyb
cc @nikomatsakis
handle outlives predicates in trait evaluation
This handles higher-ranked outlives predicates in trait evaluation the same way they are handled in projection.
Fixes#54302. I think this is a more correct fix than #54401 because it fixes the root case in evaluation instead of making evaluation used in less cases. However, we might want to go to a direction closer to @nikomatsakis's solution with Chalk.
r? @nikomatsakis
suggest `crate::...` for "local" paths in 2018
Fixes#54230.
This commit adds suggestions for unresolved imports in the cases where
there could be a missing `crate::`, `super::`, `self::` or a missing
external crate name before an import.
r? @nikomatsakis
Give a special message when the later use is from a call. Use the span
of the callee instead of the whole expression. For conflicting borrow
messages say that the later use is of the first borrow.
resolve: Disambiguate a subset of conflicts "macro_rules" vs "macro name in module"
Currently if macro name may refer to both a `macro_rules` macro definition and a macro defined/imported into module we conservatively report an ambiguity error.
Unfortunately, these errors became a source of regressions when macro modularization was enabled - see issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54472.
This PR disambiguates such conflicts in favor of `macro_rules` if both the `macro_rules` item and in-module macro name are defined in the same normal (named) module and `macro_rules` is closer in scope to the point of use (see the tests for examples).
This is a subset of more general approach described in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54472#issuecomment-424666659.
The subset is enough to fix all the regressions from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54472, but it can be extended to apply to all "macro_rules" vs "macro name in module" conflicts in the future.
To give an analogy, this is equivalent to scoping rules for `let` variables and items defined in blocks (`macro_rules` behaves like "`let` at module level" in general).
```rust
{ // beginning of the block
use xxx::m; // (1)
// Starting from the beginning of the block and until here m!() refers to (1)
macro_rules! m { ... } // (2)
// Starting from here and until the end of the block m!() refers to (2)
} // end of the block
```
More complex examples with `use` and `macro_rules` from different modules still report ambiguity errors, even if equivalent examples with `let` are legal.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54472 (stable-to-beta regression)
