Sort Generator `print-type-sizes` according to their yield points
Especially when trying to diagnose runaway future sizes, it might be more intuitive to sort the variants according to the control flow (aka their yield points) rather than the size of the variants.
Refine error spans for "The trait bound `T: Trait` is not satisfied" when passing literal structs/tuples
This PR adds a new heuristic which refines the error span reported for "`T: Trait` is not satisfied" errors, by "drilling down" into individual fields of structs/enums/tuples to point to the "problematic" value.
Here's a self-contained example of the difference in error span:
```rs
struct Burrito<Filling> {
filling: Filling,
}
impl <Filling: Delicious> Delicious for Burrito<Filling> {}
fn eat_delicious_food<Food: Delicious>(food: Food) {}
fn will_type_error() {
eat_delicious_food(Burrito { filling: Kale });
// ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (before) The trait bound `Kale: Delicious` is not satisfied
// ^~~~ (after) The trait bound `Kale: Delicious` is not satisfied
}
```
(kale is fine, this is just a silly food-based example)
Before this PR, the error span is identified as the entire argument to the generic function `eat_delicious_food`. However, since only `Kale` is the "problematic" part, we can point at it specifically. In particular, the primary error message itself mentions the missing `Kale: Delicious` trait bound, so it's much clearer if this part is called out explicitly.
---
The _existing_ heuristic tries to label the right function argument in `point_at_arg_if_possible`. It goes something like this:
- Look at the broken base trait `Food: Delicious` and find which generics it mentions (in this case, only `Food`)
- Look at the parameter type definitions and find which of them mention `Filling` (in this case, only `food`)
- If there is exactly one relevant parameter, label the corresponding argument with the error span, instead of the entire call
This PR extends this heuristic by further refining the resulting expression span in the new `point_at_specific_expr_if_possible` function. For each `impl` in the (broken) chain, we apply the following strategy:
The strategy to determine this span involves connecting information about our generic `impl`
with information about our (struct) type and the (struct) literal expression:
- Find the `impl` (`impl <Filling: Delicious> Delicious for Burrito<Filling>`)
that links our obligation (`Kale: Delicious`) with the parent obligation (`Burrito<Kale>: Delicious`)
- Find the "original" predicate constraint in the impl (`Filling: Delicious`) which produced our obligation.
- Find all of the generics that are mentioned in the predicate (`Filling`).
- Examine the `Self` type in the `impl`, and see which of its type argument(s) mention any of those generics.
- Examing the definition for the `Self` type, and identify (for each of its variants) if there's a unique field
which uses those generic arguments.
- If there is a unique field mentioning the "blameable" arguments, use that field for the error span.
Before we do any of this logic, we recursively call `point_at_specific_expr_if_possible` on the parent
obligation. Hence we refine the `expr` "outwards-in" and bail at the first kind of expression/impl we don't recognize.
This function returns a `Result<&Expr, &Expr>` - either way, it returns the `Expr` whose span should be
reported as an error. If it is `Ok`, then it means it refined successfull. If it is `Err`, then it may be
only a partial success - but it cannot be refined even further.
---
I added a new test file which exercises this new behavior. A few existing tests were affected, since their error spans are now different. In one case, this leads to a different code suggestion for the autofix - although the new suggestion isn't _wrong_, it is different from what used to be.
This change doesn't create any new errors or remove any existing ones, it just adjusts the spans where they're presented.
---
Some considerations: right now, this check occurs in addition to some similar logic in `adjust_fulfillment_error_for_expr_obligation` function, which tidies up various kinds of error spans (not just trait-fulfillment error). It's possible that this new code would be better integrated into that function (or another one) - but I haven't looked into this yet.
Although this code only occurs when there's a type error, it's definitely not as efficient as possible. In particular, there are definitely some cases where it degrades to quadratic performance (e.g. for a trait `impl` with 100+ generic parameters or 100 levels deep nesting of generic types). I'm not sure if these are realistic enough to worry about optimizing yet.
There's also still a lot of repetition in some of the logic, where the behavior for different types (namely, `struct` vs `enum` variant) is _similar_ but not the same.
---
I think the biggest win here is better targeting for tuples; in particular, if you're using tuples + traits to express variadic-like functions, the compiler can't tell you which part of a tuple has the wrong type, since the span will cover the entire argument. This change allows the individual field in the tuple to be highlighted, as in this example:
```
// NEW
LL | want(Wrapper { value: (3, q) });
| ---- ^ the trait `T3` is not implemented for `Q`
// OLD
LL | want(Wrapper { value: (3, q) });
| ---- ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ the trait `T3` is not implemented for `Q`
```
Especially with large tuples, the existing error spans are not very effective at quickly narrowing down the source of the problem.
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #107553 (Suggest std::ptr::null if literal 0 is given to a raw pointer function argument)
- #107580 (Recover from lifetimes with default lifetimes in generic args)
- #107669 (rustdoc: combine duplicate rules in ayu CSS)
- #107685 (Suggest adding a return type for async functions)
- #107687 (Adapt SROA MIR opt for aggregated MIR)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Suggest std::ptr::null if literal 0 is given to a raw pointer function argument
Implementation feels a little sus (we're parsing the span for a `0`) but it seems to fall in line the string-expected-found-char condition right above this check, so I think it's fine.
Feedback appreciated on help text? I think it's consistent but it does sound a little awkward maybe?
Fixes#107517
don't point at nonexisting code beyond EOF when warning about delims
Previously we would show this:
```
warning: unnecessary braces around block return value
--> /tmp/bad.rs:1:8
|
1 | fn a(){{{
| ^ ^
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_braces)]` on by default
help: remove these braces
|
1 - fn a(){{{
1 + fn a(){{
|
```
which is now hidden in this case.
We would create a span spanning between the pair of redundant {}s but there is only EOF instead of the `}` so we would previously point at nothing. This would cause the debug assertion ice to trigger. I would have loved to just only point at the second delim and say "you can remove that" but I'm not sure how to do that without refactoring the entire diagnostic which seems tricky. :( But given that this does not seem to regress any other tests we have, I think this edge-casey enough be acceptable.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107423
r? `@compiler-errors`
Especially when trying to diagnose runaway future sizes, it might be
more intuitive to sort the variants according to the control flow
(aka their yield points) rather than the size of the variants.
Previously we would show this:
```
warning: unnecessary braces around block return value
--> /tmp/bad.rs:1:8
|
1 | fn a(){{{
| ^ ^
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_braces)]` on by default
help: remove these braces
|
1 - fn a(){{{
1 + fn a(){{
|
```
which is now hidden in this case.
We would create a span spanning between the pair of redundant {}s but there is only EOF instead of the `}` so we would previously point at nothing.
This would cause the debug assertion ice to trigger.
I would have loved to just only point at the second delim and say "you can remove that" but I'm not sure how to do that without refactoring the entire diagnostic which seems tricky. :(
But given that this does not seem to regress any other tests we have, I think this edge-casey enough be acceptable.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107423
r? @compiler-errors
Fix suggestion for coercing Option<&String> to Option<&str>
Fixes#107604
This also makes the diagnostic `MachineApplicable`, and runs `rustfix` to check we're not producing incorrect code.
``@rustbot`` label +A-diagnostics
Don't cause a cycle when formatting query description that references a FnDef
When a function returns `-> _`, we use typeck to compute what the resulting type of the body _should_ be. If we call another query inside of typeck and hit a cycle error, we attempt to report the cycle error which requires us to compute all of the query descriptions for the stack.
However, if one of the queries in that cycle has a query description that references this function as a FnDef type, we'll cause a *second* cycle error from within the cycle error reporting code, since rendering a FnDef requires us to compute its signature. This causes an unwrap to ICE, since during the *second* cycle reporting code, we try to look for a job that isn't in the active jobs list.
We can avoid this by using `with_no_queries!` when computing these query descriptions.
Fixes#107089
The only drawback is that the rendering of opaque types in cycles regresses a bit :| I'm open to alternate suggestions about how we may handle this...
Emit warnings on unused parens in index expressions
Fixes: #96606.
I am not sure what the best term for "index expression" is. Is there a better term we could use?
Don't generate unecessary `&&self.field` in deriving Debug
Since unsized fields may only be the last one in a struct, we only need to generate a double reference (`&&self.field`) for the final one.
cc `@nnethercote`
Suggest `{var:?}` when finding `{?:var}` in inline format strings
Link to issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106572
This is my first PR to this project, so hopefully I can get some good pointers with me from the first PR.
Currently my idea was to test out whether or not this is the correct solution to this issue and then hopefully expand upon the idea to not only work for Debug formatting but for all of them. If this is a valid solution, I will create a new issue to give a better error message to a broader range of wrong-order formatting.
Erase regions before doing uninhabited check in borrowck
~Also, fingerprint query keys/values when debug assertions are enabled. This should make it easier to check for issues like this without `-Cincremental`, and make UI tests a bit cleaner.~ edit: moving that to a separate PR
Fixes#107505
Improve diagnostic for missing space in range pattern
Improves the diagnostic in #107425 by turning it into a note explaining the parsing issue.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Revert "Teach parser to understand fake anonymous enum syntax" and related commits
anonymous enum types are currently ambiguous in positions like:
* `|` operator: `a as fn() -> B | C`
* closure args: `|_: as fn() -> A | B`
I first tried to thread around `RecoverAnonEnum` into all these positions, but the resulting complexity in the compiler is IMO not worth it, or at least worth a bit more thinking time. In the mean time, let's revert this syntax for now, so we can go back to the drawing board.
Fixes#107461
cc: `@estebank` `@cjgillot` #106960
---
### Squashed revert commits:
Revert "review comment: Remove AST AnonTy"
This reverts commit 020cca8d36.
Revert "Ensure macros are not affected"
This reverts commit 12d18e4031.
Revert "Emit fewer errors on patterns with possible type ascription"
This reverts commit c847a01a3b.
Revert "Teach parser to understand fake anonymous enum syntax"
This reverts commit 2d82420665.
Revert "review comment: Remove AST AnonTy"
This reverts commit 020cca8d36.
Revert "Ensure macros are not affected"
This reverts commit 12d18e4031.
Revert "Emit fewer errors on patterns with possible type ascription"
This reverts commit c847a01a3b.
Revert "Teach parser to understand fake anonymous enum syntax"
This reverts commit 2d82420665.
Add proc-macro boilerplate to crt-static test
I was seeing this failure when running ui tests with with a `-Cpanic=abort` stdlib targeting fuchsia:
```
---- [ui] tests/ui/proc-macro/crt-static.rs stdout ----
normalized stderr:
warning: building proc macro crate with `panic=abort` may crash the compiler should the proc-macro panic
warning: 1 warning emitted
The actual stderr differed from the expected stderr.
```
`force-host` was enough to stop it from running/failing, not sure if I should also add `needs-unwind`?
