Expand the primary span of E0277 when the immediate unmet bound is not what the user wrote:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `i32: Bar` is not satisfied
--> f100.rs:6:6
|
6 | <i32 as Foo>::foo();
| ^^^ the trait `Bar` is not implemented for `i32`, which is required by `i32: Foo`
|
help: this trait has no implementations, consider adding one
--> f100.rs:2:1
|
2 | trait Bar {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
note: required for `i32` to implement `Foo`
--> f100.rs:3:14
|
3 | impl<T: Bar> Foo for T {}
| --- ^^^ ^
| |
| unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
```
Fix#40120.
Deduplicate more sized errors on call exprs
Change the implicit `Sized` `Obligation` `Span` for call expressions to include the whole expression. This aids the existing deduplication machinery to reduce the number of errors caused by a single unsized expression.
remove StructuralEq trait
The documentation given for the trait is outdated: *all* function pointers implement `PartialEq` and `Eq` these days. So the `StructuralEq` trait doesn't really seem to have any reason to exist any more.
One side-effect of this PR is that we allow matching on some consts that do not implement `Eq`. However, we already allowed matching on floats and consts containing floats, so this is not new, it is just allowed in more cases now. IMO it makes no sense at all to allow float matching but also sometimes require an `Eq` instance. If we want to require `Eq` we should adjust https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115893 to check for `Eq`, and rule out float matching for good.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115881
Change the implicit `Sized` `Obligation` `Span` for call expressions to
include the whole expression. This aids the existing deduplication
machinery to reduce the number of errors caused by a single unsized
expression.
When we encounter a `dyn Trait` that isn't object safe, look for its
implementors. If there's one, mention using it directly If there are
less than 9, mention the possibility of creating a new enum and using
that instead.
Account for object unsafe `impl Trait on dyn Trait {}`. Make a
distinction between public and sealed traits.
Fix#80194.
Return multiple object-safety violation errors and code improvements to the object-safety check
See individual commits for more information. Split off of #114260, since it turned out that the main intent of that PR was wrong.
r? oli-obk
Format all the let-chains in compiler crates
Since rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 has landed, soon we will have support for formatting let-chains (as soon as rustfmt syncs and beta gets bumped).
This PR applies the changes [from master rustfmt to rust-lang/rust eagerly](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/122651-general/topic/out.20formatting.20of.20prs/near/374997516), so that the next beta bump does not have to deal with a 200+ file diff and can remain concerned with other things like `cfg(bootstrap)` -- #113637 was a pain to land, for example, because of let-else.
I will also add this commit to the ignore list after it has landed.
The commands that were run -- I'm not great at bash-foo, but this applies rustfmt to every compiler crate, and then reverts the two crates that should probably be formatted out-of-tree.
```
~/rustfmt $ ls -1d ~/rust/compiler/* | xargs -I@ cargo run --bin rustfmt -- `@/src/lib.rs` --config-path ~/rust --edition=2021 # format all of the compiler crates
~/rust $ git checkout HEAD -- compiler/rustc_codegen_{gcc,cranelift} # revert changes to cg-gcc and cg-clif
```
cc `@rust-lang/rustfmt`
r? `@WaffleLapkin` or `@Nilstrieb` who said they may be able to review this purely mechanical PR :>
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` and `@petrochenkov,` who had some thoughts on the order of operations with big formatting changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95262#issue-1178993801. I think the situation has changed since then, given that let-chains support exists on master rustfmt now, and I'm fairly confident that this formatting PR should land even if *bootstrap* rustfmt doesn't yet format let-chains in order to lessen the burden of the next beta bump.
Adjust UI tests for `unit_bindings` lint
- Explicitly annotate `let x: () = expr;` where `x` has unit type, or remove the unit binding to leave only `expr;` instead.
- Use `let () = init;` or `let pat = ();` where appropriate.
- Fix disjoint-capture-in-same-closure test which wasn't actually testing a closure: `tests/ui/closures/2229_closure_analysis/run_pass/disjoint-capture-in-same-closure.rs`.
Note that unfortunately there's *a lot* of UI tests, there are a couple of places where I may have left something like `let (): ()` (this is not needed but is left over from an ealier version of the lint) which is bad style.
This PR is to help with the `unit_bindings` lint at #112380.
- Either explicitly annotate `let x: () = expr;` where `x` has unit
type, or remove the unit binding to leave only `expr;` instead.
- Fix disjoint-capture-in-same-closure test
