Tweak some structured suggestions to be more verbose and accurate
Addressing some issues I found while working on #127282.
```
error: this URL is not a hyperlink
--> $DIR/auxiliary/include-str-bare-urls.md:1:11
|
LL | HEADS UP! https://example.com MUST SHOW UP IN THE STDERR FILE!
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: bare URLs are not automatically turned into clickable links
note: the lint level is defined here
--> $DIR/include-str-bare-urls.rs:14:9
|
LL | #![deny(rustdoc::bare_urls)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: use an automatic link instead
|
LL | HEADS UP! <https://example.com> MUST SHOW UP IN THE STDERR FILE!
| + +
```
```
error[E0384]: cannot assign twice to immutable variable `v`
--> $DIR/assign-imm-local-twice.rs:7:5
|
LL | v = 1;
| ----- first assignment to `v`
LL | println!("v={}", v);
LL | v = 2;
| ^^^^^ cannot assign twice to immutable variable
|
help: consider making this binding mutable
|
LL | let mut v: isize;
| +++
```
```
error[E0393]: the type parameter `Rhs` must be explicitly specified
--> $DIR/issue-22560.rs:9:23
|
LL | trait Sub<Rhs=Self> {
| ------------------- type parameter `Rhs` must be specified for this
...
LL | type Test = dyn Add + Sub;
| ^^^
|
= note: because of the default `Self` reference, type parameters must be specified on object types
help: set the type parameter to the desired type
|
LL | type Test = dyn Add + Sub<Rhs>;
| +++++
```
```
error[E0596]: cannot borrow `v` as mutable, as it is not declared as mutable
--> $DIR/issue-33819.rs:4:34
|
LL | Some(ref v) => { let a = &mut v; },
| ^^^^^^ cannot borrow as mutable
|
help: try removing `&mut` here
|
LL - Some(ref v) => { let a = &mut v; },
LL + Some(ref v) => { let a = v; },
|
```
```
help: remove the invocation before committing it to a version control system
|
LL - dbg!();
|
```
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> $DIR/issue-39974.rs:1:21
|
LL | const LENGTH: f64 = 2;
| ^ expected `f64`, found integer
|
help: use a float literal
|
LL | const LENGTH: f64 = 2.0;
| ++
```
```
error[E0529]: expected an array or slice, found `Vec<i32>`
--> $DIR/match-ergonomics.rs:8:9
|
LL | [&v] => {},
| ^^^^ pattern cannot match with input type `Vec<i32>`
|
help: consider slicing here
|
LL | match x[..] {
| ++++
```
```
error[E0609]: no field `0` on type `[u32; 1]`
--> $DIR/parenthesized-deref-suggestion.rs:10:21
|
LL | (x as [u32; 1]).0;
| ^ unknown field
|
help: instead of using tuple indexing, use array indexing
|
LL | (x as [u32; 1])[0];
| ~ +
```
rustdoc: update to pulldown-cmark 0.11
r? rustdoc
This pull request updates rustdoc to the latest version of pulldown-cmark. Along with adding new markdown extensions (which this PR doesn't enable), the new pulldown-cmark version also fixes a large number of bugs. Because all text files successfully parse as markdown, these bugfixes change the output, which can break people's existing docs.
A crater run, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121659, has already been run for this change.
The first commit upgrades and fixes rustdoc. The second commit adds a lint for the footnote and block quote parser changes, which break the largest numbers of docs in the Crater run. The strikethrough change was mitigated in pulldown-cmark itself.
Unblocks https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/12876
Re-implement a type-size based limit
r? lcnr
This PR reintroduces the type length limit added in #37789, which was accidentally made practically useless by the caching changes to `Ty::walk` in #72412, which caused the `walk` function to no longer walk over identical elements.
Hitting this length limit is not fatal unless we are in codegen -- so it shouldn't affect passes like the mir inliner which creates potentially very large types (which we observed, for example, when the new trait solver compiles `itertools` in `--release` mode).
This also increases the type length limit from `1048576 == 2 ** 20` to `2 ** 24`, which covers all of the code that can be reached with craterbot-check. Individual crates can increase the length limit further if desired.
Perf regression is mild and I think we should accept it -- reinstating this limit is important for the new trait solver and to make sure we don't accidentally hit more type-size related regressions in the future.
Fixes#125460
Implement new effects desugaring
cc `@rust-lang/project-const-traits.` Will write down notes once I have finished.
* [x] See if we want `T: Tr` to desugar into `T: Tr, T::Effects: Compat<true>`
* [x] Fix ICEs on `type Assoc: ~const Tr` and `type Assoc<T: ~const Tr>`
* [ ] add types and traits to minicore test
* [ ] update rustc-dev-guide
Fixes#119717Fixes#123664Fixes#124857Fixes#126148
Rename `super_predicates_of` and similar queries to `explicit_*` to note that they're not elaborated
Rename:
* `super_predicates_of` -> `explicit_super_predicates_of`
* `implied_predicates_of` -> `explicit_implied_predicates_of`
* `supertraits_containing_assoc_item` -> `explicit_supertraits_containing_assoc_item`
This makes it clearer that, unlike (for example) [`TyCtxt::super_traits_of`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/context/struct.TyCtxt.html#method.super_traits_of), we don't automatically elaborate this set of predicates.
r? ``@lcnr`` or ``@oli-obk`` or someone from t-types idc
Tighten `fn_decl_span` for async blocks
Tightens the span of `async {}` blocks in diagnostics, and subsequently async closures and async fns, by actually setting the `fn_decl_span` correctly. This is kinda a follow-up on #125078, but it fixes the problem in a more general way.
I think the diagnostics are significantly improved, since we no longer have a bunch of overlapping spans. I'll point out one caveat where I think the diagnostic may get a bit more confusing, but where I don't think it matters.
r? ````@estebank```` or ````@oli-obk```` or someone else on wg-diag or compiler i dont really care lol
Eliminate the distinction between PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN precedence level
I have been tangling with precedence as part of porting some pretty-printer improvements from syn back to rustc (related to parenthesization of closures, returns, and breaks by the AST pretty-printer).
As far as I have been able to tell, there is no difference between the 2 different precedence levels that rustc identifies as `PREC_POSTFIX` (field access, square bracket index, question mark, method call) and `PREC_PAREN` (loops, if, paths, literals).
There are a bunch of places that look at either `prec < PREC_POSTFIX` or `prec >= PREC_POSTFIX`. But there is nothing that needs to distinguish PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN from one another.
d49994b060/compiler/rustc_ast/src/util/parser.rs (L236-L237)d49994b060/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs (L2829)d49994b060/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs (L1290)
In the interest of eliminating a distinction without a difference, this PR collapses these 2 levels down to 1.
There is exactly 1 case where an expression with PREC_POSTFIX precedence needs to be parenthesized in a location that an expression with PREC_PAREN would not, and that's when the receiver of ExprKind::MethodCall is ExprKind::Field. `x.f()` means a different thing than `(x.f)()`. But this does not justify having separate precedence levels because this special case in the grammar is not governed by precedence. Field access does not have "lower precedence than" method call syntax — you can tell because if it did, then `x.f[0].f()` wouldn't be able to have its unparenthesized field access in the receiver of a method call. Because this Field/MethodCall special case is not governed by precedence, it already requires special handling and is not affected by eliminating the PREC_POSTFIX precedence level.
d49994b060/compiler/rustc_ast_pretty/src/pprust/state/expr.rs (L217-L221)
ast: Standardize visiting order for attributes and node IDs
This should only affect `macro_rules` scopes and order of diagnostics.
Also add a deprecation lint for `macro_rules` called outside of their scope, like in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124535.
Fix `...` in multline code-skips in suggestions
When we have long code skips, we write `...` in the line number gutter.
For suggestions, we were "centering" the `...` with the line, but that was inconsistent with what we do in every other case *and* off-center.
When we have long code skips, we write `...` in the line number gutter.
For suggestions, we were "centering" the `...` with the line, but that was consistent with what we do in every other case.
This removes the ICE codepaths for `f16` and `f128` in Clippy.
`rustc_apfloat` is used as a dependency for the parsing of these types,
since their `FromStr` implementation will not be available in the
standard library for a while.
When both `std::` and `core::` items are available, only suggest the
`std::` ones. We ensure that in `no_std` crates we suggest `core::`
items.
Ensure that the list of items suggested to be imported are always in the
order of local crate items, `std`/`core` items and finally foreign crate
items.
Tweak wording of import suggestion: if there are multiple items but they
are all of the same kind, we use the kind name and not the generic "items".
Fix#83564.
Revert: create const block bodies in typeck via query feeding
as per the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125806#discussion_r1622563948
It was a mistake to try to shoehorn const blocks and some specific anon consts into the same box and feed them during typeck. It turned out not simplifying anything (my hope was that we could feed `type_of` to start avoiding the huge HIR matcher, but that didn't work out), but instead making a few things more fragile.
reverts the const-block-specific parts of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124650
`@bors` rollup=never had a small perf impact previously
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125846
r? `@compiler-errors`
Revert "Disallow ambiguous attributes on expressions" on nightly
As discussed in [today's t-compiler meeting](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bweekly.5D.202024-06-06/near/443079505), this reverts PR #124099 to fix P-critical beta regressions #125199.
r? ``@wesleywiser``
Opening as draft so that ``@wesleywiser`` and ``@apiraino,`` you can tell me whether you wanted:
1. a `beta-accepted` revert of #124099 on nightly (this PR)? That will need to be backported to beta (even though #126093 may be the last of those)
2. a revert of #124099 on beta?
3. all of the above?
I also opened #126102, another draft PR to revert #124099 on beta, should you choose options 2 or 3.
