Gracefully handle loop labels missing leading `'` in different positions
Fix#81192.
* Account for labels when suggesting `loop` instead of `while true`
* Suggest `'a` when given `a` only when appropriate
* Add loop head span to hir
* Tweak error for invalid `break expr`
* Add more misspelled label tests
* Avoid emitting redundant "unused label" lint
* Parse loop labels missing a leading `'`
Each commit can be reviewed in isolation.
don't suggest erroneous trailing comma after `..`
In #76612, suggestions were added for missing fields in patterns. However, the suggestions are being inserted just at the end
of the last field in the pattern—before any trailing comma after the last field. This resulted in the "if you don't care about missing fields" suggestion to recommend code with a trailing comma after the field ellipsis (`..,`), which is actually not legal ("`..` must be at the end and cannot have a trailing comma")!
Incidentally, the doc-comment on `error_unmentioned_fields` was using `you_cant_use_this_field` as an example field name (presumably copy-paste inherited from the description of Issue #76077), but the present author found this confusing, because unmentioned fields aren't necessarily unusable.
The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to `destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderr` doesn't work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found reserved identifier `_`" thing), so you can't really call it a regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR.
Resolves#78511.
r? `@davidtwco` or `@estebank`
Improve diagnostics when closure doesn't meet trait bound
Improves the diagnostics when closure doesn't meet trait bound by modifying `TypeckResuts::closure_kind_origins` such that `hir::Place` is used instead of `Symbol`. Using `hir::Place` to describe which capture influenced the decision of selecting a trait a closure satisfies to (Fn/FnMut/FnOnce, Copy) allows us to show precise path in the diagnostics when `capture_disjoint_field` feature is enabled.
Closes rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/21
r? ```@nikomatsakis```
In #76612, suggestions were added for missing fields in
patterns. However, the suggestions are being inserted just at the end
of the last field in the pattern—before any trailing comma after the
last field. This resulted in the "if you don't care about missing
fields" suggestion to recommend code with a trailing comma after the
field ellipsis (`..,`), which is actually not legal ("`..` must be at
the end and cannot have a trailing comma")!
Incidentally, the doc-comment on `error_unmentioned_fields` was using
`you_cant_use_this_field` as an example field name (presumably
copy-paste inherited from the description of Issue #76077), but
the present author found this confusing, because unmentioned fields
aren't necessarily unusable.
The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to
`destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderr` doesn't
work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found
reserved identifier `_`" thing), so you can't really call it a
regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR.
Resolves#78511.
implement ptr::write without dedicated intrinsic
This makes `ptr::write` more consistent with `ptr::write_unaligned`, `ptr::read`, `ptr::read_unaligned`, all of which are implemented in terms of `copy_nonoverlapping`.
This means we can also remove `move_val_init` implementations in codegen and Miri, and its special handling in the borrow checker.
Also see [this Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/ptr.3A.3Aread.20vs.20ptr.3A.3Awrite).
Rework diagnostics for wrong number of generic args (fixes#66228 and #71924)
This PR reworks the `wrong number of {} arguments` message, so that it provides more details and contextual hints.
For example, this code:
struct S(i32, f32);
let S(x) = S(0, 1.0);
will make the compiler suggest either:
let S(x, _) = S(0, 1.0);
or:
let S(x, ..) = S(0, 1.0);
Separate out a `hir::Impl` struct
This makes it possible to pass the `Impl` directly to functions, instead
of having to pass each of the many fields one at a time. It also
simplifies matches in many cases.
See `rustc_save_analysis::dump_visitor::process_impl` or `rustdoc::clean::clean_impl` for a good example of how this makes `impl`s easier to work with.
r? `@petrochenkov` maybe?
This makes it possible to pass the `Impl` directly to functions, instead
of having to pass each of the many fields one at a time. It also
simplifies matches in many cases.
Make sure rust-call errors occur correctly for traits
Fixes#79669
Adds trait method resolution to the error, and adds UI tests to ensure it doesn't happen again. Opening as draft because I'm getting weird link errors from unrelated code on my machine, and want to see what CI thinks.
