Serialize dependency graph directly from DepGraph
Reduce memory usage by serializing dep graph directly from `DepGraph`,
rather than copying it into `SerializedDepGraph` and serializing that.
Fix `unused_unsafe` label with `unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn
Previously, the following code:
```rust
#![feature(unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn foo() {
unsafe { unsf() }
}
unsafe fn unsf() {}
```
Would give the following warning:
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/lib.rs:4:5
|
4 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
which doesn't point out that the block is in an `unsafe fn`.
Tracking issue: #71668
cc #79208
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`
Stability oddity with const intrinsics
cc `@RalfJung`
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80699#discussion_r551495670 `@usbalbin` realized we accepted some intrinsics as `const` without a `#[rustc_const_(un)stable]` attribute. I did some digging, and that example works because intrinsics inherit their stability from their parents... including `#[rustc_const_(un)stable]` attributes. While we may want to fix that (not sure, wasn't there just a MCPed PR that caused this on purpose?), we definitely want tests for it, thus this PR adding tests and some fun tracing statements.
Add track_caller to .steal()
Before:
```
thread 'rustc' panicked at 'attempt to read from stolen value', /home/joshua/rustc/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/steal.rs:43:15
```
After:
```
thread 'rustc' panicked at 'attempt to steal from stolen value', compiler/rustc_mir/src/transform/mod.rs:423:25
```
r? `@lcnr`
Initialize a few variables directly
Currently they are declared as `mut`, get initialized to a default value, and
then possibly overwritten.
By initializing to the final value directly, they don't need to be `mut` and
it's clear that they don't get mutated elsewhere later on.
Use PlaceRef projection abstractions more consistently in rustc_mir
PlaceRef contains abstractions for dealing with the `projections` array. This PR uses these abstractions more consistently within the `rustc_mir` crate.
See associated issue: rust-lang/rust#80647.
r? `@RalfJung`
Don't make tools responsible for checking unknown and renamed lints
Previously, clippy (and any other tool emitting lints) had to have their
own separate UNKNOWN_LINTS pass, because the compiler assumed any tool
lint could be valid. Now, as long as any lint starting with the tool
prefix exists, the compiler will warn when an unknown lint is present.
This may interact with the unstable `tool_lint` feature, which I don't entirely understand, but it will take the burden off those external tools to add their own lint pass, which seems like a step in the right direction to me.
- Don't mark `ineffective_unstable_trait_impl` as an internal lint
- Use clippy's more advanced lint suggestions
- Deprecate the `UNKNOWN_CLIPPY_LINTS` pass (and make it a no-op)
- Say 'unknown lint `clippy::x`' instead of 'unknown lint x'
This is tested by existing clippy tests. When https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80527 merges, it will also be tested in rustdoc tests. AFAIK there is no way to test this with rustc directly.
Before:
```
thread 'rustc' panicked at 'attempt to read from stolen value', /home/joshua/rustc/compiler/rustc_data_structures/src/steal.rs:43:15
```
After:
```
thread 'rustc' panicked at 'attempt to steal from stolen value', compiler/rustc_mir/src/transform/mod.rs:423:25
```
Use Option::unwrap_or instead of open-coding it
r? ```@oli-obk``` Noticed this while we were talking about the other PR just now 😆
```@rustbot``` modify labels +C-cleanup +T-compiler
Force vec![] to expression position only
r? `@oli-obk`
I went with the lazy way of only changing what broke. I moved the test to ui/macros because the diagnostics no longer give suggestions.
Closes#61933
resolve: Simplify collection of traits in scope
"Traits in scope" for a given location are collected by walking all scopes in type namespace, collecting traits in them and pruning traits that don't have an associated item with the given name and namespace.
Previously we tried to prune traits using some kind of hygienic resolution for associated items, but that was complex and likely incorrect, e.g. in #80762 correction to visibilites of trait items caused some traits to not be in scope anymore.
I previously had some comments and concerns about this in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65351.
In this PR we are doing some much simpler pruning based on `Symbol` and `Namespace` comparisons, it should be enough to throw away 99.9% of unnecessary traits.
It is not necessary for pruning to be precise because for trait aliases, for example, we don't do any pruning at all, and precise hygienic resolution for associated items needs to be done in typeck anyway.
The somewhat unexpected effect is that trait imports introduced by macros 2.0 now bring traits into scope due to the removed hygienic check on associated item names.
I'm not sure whether it is desirable or not, but I think it's acceptable for now.
The old check was certainly incorrect because macros 2.0 did bring trait aliases into scope.
If doing this is not desirable, then we should come up with some other way to avoid bringing traits from macros 2.0 into scope, that would accommodate for trait aliases as well.
---
The PR also contains a couple of pure refactorings
- Scope walk is done by using `visit_scopes` instead of a hand-rolled version.
- Code is restructured to accomodate for rustdoc that also wants to query traits in scope, but doesn't want to filter them by associated items at all.
r? ```@matthewjasper```
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```
