Avoid invoking the hir_crate query to traverse the HIR
Walking the HIR tree is done using the `hir_crate` query. However, this is unnecessary, since `hir_owner(CRATE_DEF_ID)` provides the same information. Since depending on `hir_crate` forces dependents to always be executed, this leads to unnecessary work.
By splitting HIR and attributes visits, we can avoid an edge to `hir_crate` when trying to visit the HIR tree.
Provide `layout_of` automatically (given tcx + param_env + error handling).
After #88337, there's no longer any uses of `LayoutOf` within `rustc_target` itself, so I realized I could move the trait to `rustc_middle::ty::layout` and redesign it a bit.
This is similar to #88338 (and supersedes it), but at no ergonomic loss, since there's no funky `C: LayoutOf<Ty = Ty>` -> `Ty: TyAbiInterface<C>` generic `impl` chain, and each `LayoutOf` still corresponds to one `impl` (of `LayoutOfHelpers`) for the specific context.
After this PR, this is what's needed to get `trait LayoutOf` (with the `layout_of` method) implemented on some context type:
* `TyCtxt`, via `HasTyCtxt`
* `ParamEnv`, via `HasParamEnv`
* a way to transform `LayoutError`s into the desired error type
* an error type of `!` can be paired with having `cx.layout_of(...)` return `TyAndLayout` *without* `Result<...>` around it, such as used by codegen
* this is done through a new `LayoutOfHelpers` trait (and so is specifying the type of `cx.layout_of(...)`)
When going through this path (and not bypassing it with a manual `impl` of `LayoutOf`), the end result is that only the error case can be customized, the query itself and the success paths are guaranteed to be uniform.
(**EDIT**: just noticed that because of the supertrait relationship, you cannot actually implement `LayoutOf` yourself, the blanket `impl` fully covers all possible context types that could ever implement it)
Part of the motivation for this shape of API is that I've been working on querifying `FnAbi::of_*`, and what I want/need to introduce for that looks a lot like the setup in this PR - in particular, it's harder to express the `FnAbi` methods in `rustc_target`, since they're much more tied to `rustc` concepts.
r? `@nagisa` cc `@oli-obk` `@bjorn3`
Introduce `let...else`
Tracking issue: #87335
The trickiest part for me was enforcing the diverging else block with clear diagnostics. Perhaps the obvious solution is to expand to `let _: ! = ..`, but I decided against this because, when a "mismatched type" error is found in typeck, there is no way to trace where in the HIR the expected type originated, AFAICT. In order to pass down this information, I believe we should introduce `Expectation::LetElseNever(HirId)` or maybe add `HirId` to `Expectation::HasType`, but I left that as a future enhancement. For now, I simply assert that the block is `!` with a custom `ObligationCauseCode`, and I think this is clear enough, at least to start. The downside here is that the error points at the entire block rather than the specific expression with the wrong type. I left a todo to this effect.
Overall, I believe this PR is feature-complete with regard to the RFC.
Warn when [T; N].into_iter() is ambiguous in the new edition.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/88475
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/88475, a situation was found where `[T; N].into_iter()` becomes *ambiguous* in the new edition. This is different than the case where `(&[T; N]).into_iter()` resolves differently, which was the only case handled by the `array_into_iter` lint. This is almost identical to the new-traits-in-the-prelude problem. Effectively, due to the array-into-iter hack disappearing in Rust 2021, we effectively added `IntoIterator` to the 'prelude' in Rust 2021 specifically for arrays.
This modifies the prelude collisions lint to detect that case and emit a `array_into_iter` lint in that case.
rustc_target: `TyAndLayout::field` should never error.
This refactor (making `TyAndLayout::field` return `TyAndLayout` without any `Result` around it) is based on a simple observation, regarding `TyAndLayout::field`:
If `cx.layout_of(ty)` succeeds (for some `cx` and `ty`), then `.field(cx, i)` on the resulting `TyAndLayout` should *always* succeed in computing `cx.layout_of(field_ty)` (where `field_ty` is the type of the `i`th field of `ty`).
The reason for this is that no matter which field is chosen, `cx.layout_of(field_ty)` *will have already been computed*, as part of computing `cx.layout_of(ty)`, as we cannot determine the layout of *any* type without considering the layouts of *all* of its fields.
And so it should be fine to turn any errors into ICEs, since they likely indicate a `cx` mismatch, or some other edge case that is due to a compiler bug (as opposed to ever being an user-facing error).
<hr/>
Each commit should probably be reviewed separately, though note that there's some `where` clauses (in `rustc_target::abi::call::*`) that change in most commits.
cc `@nagisa` `@oli-obk`
Refactor `named_asm_labels` to a HIR lint
As discussed on #88169, the `named_asm_labels` lint could be moved to a HIR lint. That allows future lints or custom plugins or clippy lints to more easily access the `asm!` macro's data and create better error messages with the lints.
Use custom wrap-around type instead of RangeInclusive
Two reasons:
1. More memory is allocated than necessary for `valid_range` in `Scalar`. The range is not used as an iterator and `exhausted` is never used.
2. `contains`, `count` etc. methods in `RangeInclusive` are doing very unhelpful(and dangerous!) things when used as a wrap-around range. - In general this PR wants to limit potentially confusing methods, that have a low probability of working.
Doing a local perf run, every metric shows improvement except for instructions.
Max-rss seem to have a very consistent improvement.
Sorry - newbie here, probably doing something wrong.
Remove `Session.used_attrs` and move logic to `CheckAttrVisitor`
Instead of updating global state to mark attributes as used,
we now explicitly emit a warning when an attribute is used in
an unsupported position. As a side effect, we are to emit more
detailed warning messages (instead of just a generic "unused" message).
`Session.check_name` is removed, since its only purpose was to mark
the attribute as used. All of the callers are modified to use
`Attribute.has_name`
Additionally, `AttributeType::AssumedUsed` is removed - an 'assumed
used' attribute is implemented by simply not performing any checks
in `CheckAttrVisitor` for a particular attribute.
We no longer emit unused attribute warnings for the `#[rustc_dummy]`
attribute - it's an internal attribute used for tests, so it doesn't
mark sense to treat it as 'unused'.
With this commit, a large source of global untracked state is removed.
Improve wording of the `drop_bounds` lint
This PR addresses #86653. The issue is sort of a false positive of the `drop_bounds` lint, but I would argue that the best solution for #86653 is simply a rewording of the warning message and lint description, because even if the lint is _technically_ wrong, it still forces the programmer to think about what they are doing, and they can always use `#[allow(drop_bounds)]` if they think that they really need the `Drop` bound.
There are two issues with the current warning message and lint description:
- First, it says that `Drop` bounds are "useless", which is technically incorrect because they actually do have the effect of allowing you e.g. to call methods that also have a `Drop` bound on their generic arguments for some reason. I have changed the wording to emphasize not that the bound is "useless", but that it is most likely not what was intended.
- Second, it claims that `std::mem::needs_drop` detects whether a type has a destructor. But I think this is also technically wrong: The `Drop` bound says whether the type has a destructor or not, whereas `std::mem::needs_drop` also takes nested types with destructors into account, even if the top-level type does not itself have one (although I'm not 100% sure about the exact terminology here, i.e. whether the "drop glue" of the top-level type counts as a destructor or not).
cc `@jonhoo,` does this solve the issue for you?
r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
Instead of updating global state to mark attributes as used,
we now explicitly emit a warning when an attribute is used in
an unsupported position. As a side effect, we are to emit more
detailed warning messages (instead of just a generic "unused" message).
`Session.check_name` is removed, since its only purpose was to mark
the attribute as used. All of the callers are modified to use
`Attribute.has_name`
Additionally, `AttributeType::AssumedUsed` is removed - an 'assumed
used' attribute is implemented by simply not performing any checks
in `CheckAttrVisitor` for a particular attribute.
We no longer emit unused attribute warnings for the `#[rustc_dummy]`
attribute - it's an internal attribute used for tests, so it doesn't
mark sense to treat it as 'unused'.
With this commit, a large source of global untracked state is removed.
Force warn improvements
As part of stablization of the `--force-warn` option (#86516) I've made the following changes:
* Error when the `warnings` lint group is based to the `--force-warn` option
* Tests have been updated to make it easier to understand the semantics of `--force-warn`
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Improve non_fmt_panics suggestion based on trait impls.
This improves the non_fmt_panics lint suggestions by checking first which trait (Display or Debug) are actually implemented on the type.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87313
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87999
Before:
```
help: add a "{}" format string to Display the message
|
2 | panic!("{}", Some(1));
| +++++
help: or use std::panic::panic_any instead
|
2 | std::panic::panic_any(Some(1));
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
```
After:
```
help: add a "{:?}" format string to use the Debug implementation of `Option<i32>`
|
2 | panic!("{:?}", Some(1));
| +++++++
help: or use std::panic::panic_any instead
|
2 | std::panic::panic_any(Some(1));
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
```
r? `@estebank`
Detect fake spans in non_fmt_panic lint.
This addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87621
Some proc_macros claim that the user wrote all of the tokens it outputs, by applying a span from the input to all of the produced tokens. That can result in confusing suggestions, as in #87621. This is a simple patch that avoids suggesting anything for `panic!("{}")` if the span of `"{}"` and `panic!(..)` are identical, which is normally not possible.
