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.
Currently we have an awkward mix of fallible and infallible functions:
```
new_parser_from_source_str
maybe_new_parser_from_source_str
new_parser_from_file
(maybe_new_parser_from_file) // missing
(new_parser_from_source_file) // missing
maybe_new_parser_from_source_file
source_str_to_stream
maybe_source_file_to_stream
```
We could add the two missing functions, but instead this commit removes
of all the infallible ones and renames the fallible ones leaving us with
these which are all fallible:
```
new_parser_from_source_str
new_parser_from_file
new_parser_from_source_file
source_str_to_stream
source_file_to_stream
```
This requires making `unwrap_or_emit_fatal` public so callers of
formerly infallible functions can still work.
This does make some of the call sites slightly more verbose, but I think
it's worth it for the simpler API. Also, there are two `catch_unwind`
calls and one `catch_fatal_errors` call in this diff that become
removable thanks this change. (I will do that in a follow-up PR.)
Uplift `{Closure,Coroutine,CoroutineClosure}Args` and friends to `rustc_type_ir`
Part of converting the new solver's `structural_traits.rs` to be interner-agnostic.
I decided against aliasing `ClosureArgs<TyCtxt<'tcx>>` to `ClosureArgs<'tcx>` because it seemed so rare. I could do so if desired, though.
r? lcnr
Rename HIR `TypeBinding` to `AssocItemConstraint` and related cleanup
Rename `hir::TypeBinding` and `ast::AssocConstraint` to `AssocItemConstraint` and update all items and locals using the old terminology.
Motivation: The terminology *type binding* is extremely outdated. "Type bindings" not only include constraints on associated *types* but also on associated *constants* (feature `associated_const_equality`) and on RPITITs of associated *functions* (feature `return_type_notation`). Hence the word *item* in the new name. Furthermore, the word *binding* commonly refers to a mapping from a binder/identifier to a "value" for some definition of "value". Its use in "type binding" made sense when equality constraints (e.g., `AssocTy = Ty`) were the only kind of associated item constraint. Nowadays however, we also have *associated type bounds* (e.g., `AssocTy: Bound`) for which the term *binding* doesn't make sense.
---
Old terminology (HIR, rustdoc):
```
`TypeBinding`: (associated) type binding
├── `Constraint`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: (associated) equality constraint (?)
├── `Ty`: (associated) type binding
└── `Const`: associated const equality (constraint)
```
Old terminology (AST, abbrev.):
```
`AssocConstraint`
├── `Bound`
└── `Equality`
├── `Ty`
└── `Const`
```
New terminology (AST, HIR, rustdoc):
```
`AssocItemConstraint`: associated item constraint
├── `Bound`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: associated item equality constraint OR associated item binding (for short)
├── `Ty`: associated type equality constraint OR associated type binding (for short)
└── `Const`: associated const equality constraint OR associated const binding (for short)
```
r? compiler-errors
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #125342 (Document platform-specifics for `Read` and `Write` of `File`)
- #125711 (Make `body_owned_by` return the `Body` instead of just the `BodyId`)
- #125739 (drop_in_place: weaken the claim of equivalence with drop(ptr.read()))
- #125745 (Bump the stage0 compiler to beta.7 (2024-05-26))
- #125746 (Fix copy-paste error in `Duration::from_weeks` panic message.)
- #125753 (compiletest: Unify `cmd2procres` with `run_command_to_procres`)
- #125754 (coverage: Rename MC/DC `conditions_num` to `num_conditions`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Make `body_owned_by` return the `Body` instead of just the `BodyId`
fixes#125677
Almost all `body_owned_by` callers immediately called `body`, too, so just return `Body` directly.
This makes the inline-const query feeding more robust, as all calls to `body_owned_by` will now yield a body for inline consts, too.
I have not yet figured out a good way to make `tcx.hir().body()` return an inline-const body, but that can be done as a follow-up
Make `body_owned_by` return the `Body` instead of just the `BodyId`
fixes#125677
Almost all `body_owned_by` callers immediately called `body`, too, so just return `Body` directly.
This makes the inline-const query feeding more robust, as all calls to `body_owned_by` will now yield a body for inline consts, too.
I have not yet figured out a good way to make `tcx.hir().body()` return an inline-const body, but that can be done as a follow-up
don't inhibit random field reordering on repr(packed(1))
`inhibit_struct_field_reordering_opt` being false means we exclude this type from random field shuffling. However, `packed(1)` types can still be shuffled! The logic was added in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48528 since it's pointless to reorder fields in packed(1) types (there's no padding that could be saved) -- but that shouldn't inhibit `-Zrandomize-layout` (which did not exist at the time).
We could add an optimization elsewhere to not bother sorting the fields for `repr(packed)` types, but I don't think that's worth the effort.
This *does* change the behavior in that we may now reorder fields of `packed(1)` structs (e.g. if there are niches, we'll try to move them to the start/end, according to `NicheBias`). We were always allowed to do that but so far we didn't. Quoting the [reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/type-layout.html):
> On their own, align and packed do not provide guarantees about the order of fields in the layout of a struct or the layout of an enum variant, although they may be combined with representations (such as C) which do provide such guarantees.
