If a primary bundle doesn't contain a message then the fallback bundle
is used. However, if the primary bundle's message is broken (e.g. it
refers to a interpolated variable that the compiler isn't providing)
then this would just result in a compiler panic. While there aren't any
primary bundles right now, this is the type of issue that could come up
once translation is further along.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
Stabilize backtrace
This PR stabilizes the std::backtrace module. As of #99431, the std::Error::backtrace item has been removed, and so the rest of the backtrace feature is set to be stabilized.
Previous discussion can be found in #72981, #3156.
Stabilized API summary:
```rust
pub mod std {
pub mod backtrace {
pub struct Backtrace { }
pub enum BacktraceStatus {
Unsupported,
Disabled,
Captured,
}
impl fmt::Debug for Backtrace {}
impl Backtrace {
pub fn capture() -> Backtrace;
pub fn force_capture() -> Backtrace;
pub const fn disabled() -> Backtrace;
pub fn status(&self) -> BacktraceStatus;
}
impl fmt::Display for Backtrace {}
}
}
```
`@yaahc`
Remove the unused StableSet and StableMap types from rustc_data_structures.
The current implementation is not "stable" in the same sense that `HashStable` and `StableHasher` are stable, i.e. across compilation sessions. So, in my opinion, it's better to remove those types (which are basically unused anyway) than to give the wrong impression that these are safe for incr. comp.
I plan to provide new "stable" collection types soon that can be used to replace `FxHashMap` and `FxHashSet` in query results (see [draft](69d03ac7a7)). It's unsound that `HashMap` and `HashSet` implement `HashStable` (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98890 for a recent P-critical bug caused by this) -- so we should make some progress there.
Apply the `#[rustc_lint_diagnostics]` attribute to
`LintDiagnosticBuilder::build` so that diagnostic migration lints will
trigger for it.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
Implements `IntoDiagnosticArg` for `char` using its `Debug`
implementation and introduces a macro for those types which just
delegate the implementation to `ToString`.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
Fix duplicated type annotation suggestion
Before, there was more or less duplicated suggestions to add type hints.
Fix by clearing more generic suggestions when a more specific suggestion
is possible.
This fixes#93506 .
Before, there was more or less duplicated suggestions to add type hints.
Fix by clearing more generic suggestions when a more specific suggestion
is possible.
This fixes#93506 .
Migrate some diagnostics from `rustc_const_eval` to `SessionDiagnostic`
I'm still trying to get the hang of this, so it doesn't migrate _all_ of `rustc_const_eval`. Working on that later.
r? `@davidtwco`
sess: stabilize `--terminal-width` as `--diagnostic-width`
Formerly `-Zterminal-width`, `--terminal-width` allows the user or build
tool to inform rustc of the width of the terminal so that diagnostics
can be truncated.
Pending agreement to stabilize, see tracking issue at #84673.
r? ```@oli-obk```
Rename the `--output-width` flag to `--diagnostic-width` as this appears
to be the preferred name within the compiler team.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
Rename the `--terminal-width` flag to `--output-width` as the behaviour
doesn't just apply to terminals (and so is slightly less accurate).
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
lints: mostly translatable diagnostics
As lints are created slightly differently than other diagnostics, intended to try make them translatable first and then look into the applicability of diagnostic structs but ended up just making most of the diagnostics in the crate translatable (which will still be useful if I do make a lot of them structs later anyway).
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Accept `DiagnosticMessage` in `LintDiagnosticBuilder::build` so that
lints can be built with translatable diagnostic messages.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
Hide irrelevant lines in suggestions to allow for suggestions that are far from each other to be shown
This is an attempt to fix suggestions one part of which is 6 lines or more far from the first. I've noticed "the problem" (of not showing some parts of the suggestion) here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97759#discussion_r889689230.
I'm not sure about the implementation (this big closure is just bad and makes already complicated code even more so), but I want to at least discuss the result.
Here is an example of how this changes the output:
Before:
```text
help: consider enclosing expression in a block
|
3 ~ 'l: { match () { () => break 'l,
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
...
```
After:
```text
help: consider enclosing expression in a block
|
3 ~ 'l: { match () { () => break 'l,
4 |
...
31|
32~ } };
|
```
r? `@estebank`
`@rustbot` label +A-diagnostics +A-suggestion-diagnostics
Previously we only show at most 6 lines of suggestions and, if the
suggestions are more than 6 lines apart, we've just showed ... at the
end. This is probably fine, but quite confusing in my opinion.
This commit is an attempt to show ... in places where there is nothing
to suggest instead, for example:
Before:
```text
help: consider enclosing expression in a block
|
3 ~ 'l: { match () { () => break 'l,
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
...
```
After:
```text
help: consider enclosing expression in a block
|
3 ~ 'l: { match () { () => break 'l,
4 |
...
31|
32~ } };
|
```
Support lint expectations for `--force-warn` lints (RFC 2383)
Rustc has a `--force-warn` flag, which overrides lint level attributes and forces the diagnostics to always be warn. This means, that for lint expectations, the diagnostic can't be suppressed as usual. This also means that the expectation would not be fulfilled, even if a lint had been triggered in the expected scope.
This PR now also tracks the expectation ID in the `ForceWarn` level. I've also made some minor adjustments, to possibly catch more bugs and make the whole implementation more robust.
This will probably conflict with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97718. That PR should ideally be reviewed and merged first. The conflict itself will be trivial to fix.
---
r? `@wesleywiser`
cc: `@flip1995` since you've helped with the initial review and also discussed this topic with me. 🙃
Follow-up of: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87835
Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85549
Yeah, and that's it.
