Debug for unit-like enum variants.
The intent here is to allow LLVM to remove the switch entirely in favor of an
indexed load from a table of constant strings, which is likely what the
programmer would write in C. Unfortunately, LLVM currently doesn't perform this
optimization due to a bug, but there is [a
patch](https://reviews.llvm.org/D109565) that fixes this issue. I've verified
that, with that patch applied on top of this commit, Debug for unit-like tuple
variants becomes a load, reducing the O(n) code bloat to O(1).
Note that inlining `DebugTuple::finish()` wasn't enough to allow LLVM to
optimize the code properly; I had to avoid the abstraction entirely. Not using
the abstraction is likely better for compile time anyway.
Part of #88793.
Now that we encode spans relative to the items, the item's own span is
never actually hashed as part of the HIR.
In consequence, we explicitly include it in the crate hash to avoid
missing cross-crate invalidations.
Fix table in docblocks
"Overwrite" of #88702.
Instead of adding a z-index to the sidebar (which only hides the issue, doesn't fix it), I wrap `<table>` elements inside a `<div>` and limit all chidren of `.docblock` elements' width to prevent having the scrollbar on the whole doc block.
Thanks `@nbdd0121` for `overflow-x: auto;`. ;)
r? `@notriddle`
RustWrapper: avoid deleted unclear attribute methods
These were deleted in https://reviews.llvm.org/D108614, and in C++ I
definitely see the argument for their removal. I didn't try and
propagate the changes up into higher layers of rustc in this change
because my initial goal was to get rustc working against LLVM HEAD
promptly, but I'm happy to follow up with some refactoring to make the
API on the Rust side match the LLVM API more directly (though the way
the enum works in Rust makes the API less scary IMO).
r? ``@nagisa`` cc ``@nikic``
Rustdoc coverage fields count
Follow-up of #88688.
Instead of requiring enum tuple variant fields and tuple struct fields to be documented, we count them if they are documented, otherwise we don't include them in the count.
r? `@Manishearth`
Emit proper errors when on missing closure braces
This commit focuses on emitting clean errors for the following syntax
error:
```
Some(42).map(|a|
dbg!(a);
a
);
```
Previous implementation tried to recover after parsing the closure body
(the `dbg` expression) by replacing the next `;` with a `,`, which made
the next expression belong to the next function argument. As such, the
following errors were emitted (among others):
- the semicolon token was not expected,
- a is not in scope,
- Option::map is supposed to take one argument, not two.
This commit allows us to gracefully handle this situation by adding
giving the parser the ability to remember when it has just parsed a
closure body inside a function call. When this happens, we can treat the
unexpected `;` specifically and try to parse as much statements as
possible in order to eat the whole block. When we can't parse statements
anymore, we generate a clean error indicating that the braces are
missing, and return an ExprKind::Err.
Closes#88065.
r? `@estebank`
Fix stray notes when the source code is not available
Fixes#87060. To reproduce it with a local build of rustc, you have to copy the compiler (e.g. `build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/`) somewhere and then rename the compiler source directory (maybe there is a smarter way as well). Then, rustc won't find the standard library sources and report stray notes such as
```
note: deref defined here
```
with no location for "here". Another example I've found is this:
```rust
use std::ops::Add;
fn foo<T: Add<Output=()>>(x: T) {
x + x;
}
fn main() {}
```
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `x`
--> binop.rs:4:9
|
3 | fn foo<T: Add<Output=()>>(x: T) {
| - move occurs because `x` has type `T`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
4 | x + x;
| ----^
| | |
| | value used here after move
| `x` moved due to usage in operator
|
note: calling this operator moves the left-hand side
help: consider further restricting this bound
|
3 | fn foo<T: Add<Output=()> + Copy>(x: T) {
| ^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
```
where, again, the note is supposed to point somewhere but doesn't. I have fixed this by checking whether the corresponding source code is actually available before emitting the note.
Add proc_macro::Span::{before, after}.
This adds `proc_macro::Span::before()` and `proc_macro::Span::after()` to get a zero width span at the start or end of the span.
These are equivalent to rustc's `Span::shrink_to_lo()` and `Span::shrink_to_hi()` but with a less cryptic name. They are useful when generating diagnostlics like "missing \<thing\> after \<thing\>".
E.g.
```rust
syn::Error::new(ident.span().after(), "missing `:` after field name").into_compile_error()
```
Ignore derived Clone and Debug implementations during dead code analysis
This pull request fixes#84647. Derived implementations of `Clone` and `Debug` always trivially read all fields, so "field is never read" dead code warnings are never triggered. Arguably, though, a user most likely will only be interested in whether _their_ code ever reads those fields, which is the behavior I have implemented here.
Note that implementations of `Clone` and `Debug` are only ignored if they are `#[derive(...)]`d; a custom `impl Clone/Debug for ...` will still be analyzed normally (i.e. if a custom `Clone` implementation uses all fields of the struct, this will continue to suppress dead code warnings about unused fields); this seemed like the least intrusive change to me (although it would be easy to change — just drop the `&& [impl_]item.span.in_derive_expansion()` in the if conditions).
The only thing that I am slightly unsure about is that in #84647, `@matklad` said
> Doesn't seem easy to fix though :(
However, it _was_ pretty straightforward to fix, so did I perhaps overlook something obvious? `@matklad,` could you weigh in on this?
