Add a new `wasm32-wasip1` target to rustc
This commit adds a new target called `wasm32-wasip1` to rustc. This new target is explained in these two MCPs:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/607
* https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/695
In short, the previous `wasm32-wasi` target is going to be renamed to `wasm32-wasip1` to better live alongside the [new `wasm32-wasip2` target](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119616). This new target is added alongside the `wasm32-wasi` target and has the exact same definition as the previous target. This PR is effectively a rename of `wasm32-wasi` to `wasm32-wasip1`. Note, however, that as explained in rust-lang/compiler-team#695 the previous `wasm32-wasi` target is not being removed at this time. This change will reach stable Rust before even a warning about the rename will be printed. At this time this change is just the start where a new target is introduced and users can start migrating if they support only Nightly for example.
This test won't work on windows 7, as the Thread::set_name function is
not implemented there (win7 does not provide a documented mechanism to
set thread names).
Rollup of 3 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #121130 (Suggest moving definition if non-found macro_rules! is defined later)
- #121912 (Properly deal with GATs when looking for method chains to point at)
- #121927 (Add a proper `with_no_queries` to printing)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Most of this method's arguments are usually or always forwarded as-is to
recursive invocations.
Wrapping them in a dedicated struct allows us to document each struct field,
and lets us use struct-update syntax to indicate which arguments are being
modified when making a recursive call.
Properly deal with GATs when looking for method chains to point at
Fixes#121898.
~~While it prevents an ICE and the structured suggestion is correct, the method chain diagnostic notes are weird / useless / incorrect judging by a quick look. I guess I should improve that in this PR.~~ Sufficiently taken care of.
r? estebank or compiler-errors (#105332, #105674).
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #121248 (Move some tests)
- #121528 (Consider middle segments of paths in `unused_qualifications`)
- #121749 (Don't lint on executable crates with `non_snake_case` names)
- #121935 (library/ptr: mention that ptr::without_provenance is equivalent to deriving from the null ptr)
- #121945 (Run some ui-fulldeps tests on stage 1 again)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Run some ui-fulldeps tests on stage 1 again
This is the second time I'm doing this... I'm starting to feel like stage1 ui-fulldeps tests were a mistake. Maybe I should have just put `#[cfg(bootstrap)]` there to let the bootstrap bumper fix it.
`@George-lewis` :)
finishes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119088#issuecomment-1890389583
library/ptr: mention that ptr::without_provenance is equivalent to deriving from the null ptr
This might help clarify why you can't do memory accesses with it.
Consider middle segments of paths in `unused_qualifications`
Currently `unused_qualifications` looks at the last segment of a path to see if it can be trimmed, this PR extends the check to the middle segments also
```rust
// currently linted
use std::env::args();
std::env::args(); // Removes `std::env::`
```
```rust
// newly linted
use std::env;
std::env::args(); // Removes `std::`
```
Paths with generics in them are now linted as long as the part being trimmed is before any generic args, e.g. it will now suggest trimming `std::vec::` from `std::vec::Vec<usize>`
Paths with any segments that are from an expansion are no longer linted
Fixes#100979Fixes#96698
```
error[E0599]: no method named `map` found for struct `Vec<bool>` in the current scope
--> $DIR/vec-on-unimplemented.rs:3:23
|
LL | vec![true, false].map(|v| !v).collect::<Vec<_>>();
| ^^^ `Vec<bool>` is not an iterator
|
help: call `.into_iter()` first
|
LL | vec![true, false].into_iter().map(|v| !v).collect::<Vec<_>>();
| ++++++++++++
```
We used to provide some help through `rustc_on_unimplemented` on non-`impl Trait` and non-type-params, but this lets us get rid of some otherwise unnecessary conditions in the annotation on `Iterator`.
When encountering trait bound errors that satisfy some heuristics that
tell us that the relevant trait for the user comes from the root
obligation and not the current obligation, we use the root predicate for
the main message.
This allows to talk about "X doesn't implement Pattern<'_>" over the
most specific case that just happened to fail, like "char doesn't
implement Fn(&mut char)" in
`tests/ui/traits/suggest-dereferences/root-obligation.rs`
The heuristics are:
- the type of the leaf predicate is (roughly) the same as the type
from the root predicate, as a proxy for "we care about the root"
- the leaf trait and the root trait are different, so as to avoid
talking about `&mut T: Trait` and instead remain talking about
`T: Trait` instead
- the root trait is not `Unsize`, as to avoid talking about it in
`tests/ui/coercion/coerce-issue-49593-box-never.rs`.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `&char: Pattern<'_>` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/root-obligation.rs:6:38
|
LL | .filter(|c| "aeiou".contains(c))
| -------- ^ the trait `Fn<(char,)>` is not implemented for `&char`, which is required by `&char: Pattern<'_>`
| |
| required by a bound introduced by this call
|
= note: required for `&char` to implement `FnOnce<(char,)>`
= note: required for `&char` to implement `Pattern<'_>`
note: required by a bound in `core::str::<impl str>::contains`
--> $SRC_DIR/core/src/str/mod.rs:LL:COL
help: consider dereferencing here
|
LL | .filter(|c| "aeiou".contains(*c))
| +
```
Fix#79359, fix#119983, fix#118779, cc #118415 (the suggestion needs
to change).
This is the second time I'm doing this... I'm starting to feel like
stage1 ui-fulldeps tests were a mistake. Maybe I should have just put
`#[cfg(bootstrap)]` there to let the bootstrap bumper fix it.
