Extend rustc::middle::dataflow to allow filtering kills from flow-exits.
Fix borrowck analysis so that it will not treat a break that pops through an assignment
```rust
x = { ... break; ... }
```
as a kill of the "moved-out" bit for `x`.
Fix#24267.
[breaking-change], but really, its only breaking code that was already buggy.
Revise rustc::middle::dataflow: one must select kill-kind when calling
add_kill. The current kill-kinds are (1.) kills associated with
ends-of-scopes and (2.) kills associated with the actual action of the
expression/pattern.
Then, use this to fix borrowck analysis so that it will not treat a
break that pops through an assignment `x = { ... break; ... }` as a
kill of the "moved-out" bit for `x`.
Fix#24267.
(incorporated review feedback.)
An actual typeck error is the cause of many failed compilations but an
unrelated bug is being reported instead. It is triggered because a typeck
error is presumably not yet identified during compiler execution, which
would normally bypass an invariant in the presence of other errors. In
this particular situation, we delay the reporting of the bug until
abort_if_errors().
Closes#23827, closes#24356, closes#23041, closes#22897, closes#23966,
closes#24013, and closes#23729
Don't use skolemized parameters but rather fresh variables in coherence. Skolemized parameters wind up preventing unification. Surprised we had no test for this! Fixes#24241.
r? @pnkfelix
Example showing sample inputs, old message, new message:
https://gist.github.com/nikomatsakis/11126784ac678b7eb6ba
Also adds infrastructure for reporting suggestions \"in situ\" and does some (minor) cleanups to `CodeMap`.
r? @brson
This commit series starts out with more official test harness support for rustdoc tests, and then each commit afterwards adds a test (where appropriate). Each commit should also test and finish independently of all others (they're all pretty separable).
I've uploaded a [copy of the documentation](http://people.mozilla.org/~acrichton/doc/std/) generated after all these commits were applied, and a double check on issues being closed would be greatly appreciated! I'll also browse the docs a bit and make sure nothing regressed too horribly.
r? @brson
I'm using this to integrate rustc with [american-fuzzy-lop](http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/). Building with afl instrumentation is no different from loading any other plugin library.
I'd like this PR to include a `run-make` test with a custom LLVM pass; however I'm not sure it's worth the trouble of building C++ code and linking LLVM from the test suite (are there existing tests that do this?)
Modify the ExprUseVisitor to walk each part of an AutoRef, and in
particular to treat an AutoUnsize as as kind of \"instantaneous\" borrow
of the value being unsized. This prevents us from feeding uninitialized
data.
This caused a problem for the eager reborrow of comparison traits,
because that wound up introducing a \"double AutoRef\", which was not
being thoroughly checked before but turned out not to type check.
Fortunately, we can just remove that \"eager reborrow\" as it is no longer
needed now that `PartialEq` doesn't force both LHS and RHS to have the
same type (and even if we did have this problem, the better way would be
to lean on introducing a common supertype).
Fixes#20791.
r? @nrc
I've taken another look at extended errors - fixing up the printing and adding a few more for match expressions.
With regards to printing, the previous behaviour was to just print the error message string directly, despite it containing indentation which caused it to overflow the standard terminal width of 80 columns (try `rustc --explain E0004`). The first approach I considered was to strip the leading whitespace from each line and lay out the text dynamically, inserting spaces in between. This approach became quite messy when taking multi-paragraph errors into account (and seemed overkill). The approach I settled on removes the indentation in the string itself and begins each message with a newline that is stripped before printing.
I feel like complete extended errors would be nice to have for 1.0.0 and I'm happy to spearhead an effort to get them written. Brian got me onto writing them at an SF meetup and I think it shouldn't be too hard to get the remaining 80 or so written with the help of people who don't really work on compiler innards.
