Suggest correct comparison against negative literal
When parsing as emplacement syntax (`x<-1`), suggest the correct syntax
for comparison against a negative value (`x< -1`).
Fix#45651.
Rename hir::ExprAgain to hir::ExprContinue
The current name is confusing and historical.
I also used this PR to clean up the annoying indentation in `check/mod.rs`. If that's viewed as too tangential a change, I'll split it up, but it seemed reasonable to slip it in to reduce @bors's work. It's easy to compare for the two commits individually.
r? @petrochenkov
This is gated on edition 2018 & the `async_await` feature gate.
The parser will accept `async fn` and `async unsafe fn` as fn
items. Along the same lines as `const fn`, only `async unsafe fn`
is permitted, not `unsafe async fn`.The parser will not accept
`async` functions as trait methods.
To do a little code clean up, four fields of the function type
struct have been merged into the new `FnHeader` struct: constness,
asyncness, unsafety, and ABI.
Also, a small bug in HIR printing is fixed: it previously printed
`const unsafe fn` as `unsafe const fn`, which is grammatically
incorrect.
[MIR] Change "scopes" from "visibility scopes" to "source scopes".
These scopes are already used for source-oriented diagnostics, lint levels and unsafety checks.
This PR generalizes the naming around scopes, making the type `SourceScope`, and flips (across several commits) the relationship/priority between `LocalDecl`'s "visibility" and "syntactic" scopes.
r? @nikomatsakis
(This is just the data structure changes and some boilerplate match
code that followed from it; the actual emission of these statements
comes in a follow-up commit.)
CheckLoopVisitor: also visit closure arguments
This turns the ICE #50581 in this code:
```rust
fn main() {
|_: [u8; break]| ();
}
```
from
```
'assertion failed: self.tcx.sess.err_count() > 0', librustc_typeck/check/mod.rs
```
to
```
librustc_mir/hair/cx/expr.rs:543: invalid loop id for break: not inside loop scope
```
which is an ICE as well but at a later stage during compilation and most importantly
fixes of bug #50576 will fix this as well.
As this "only" moves an ICE to a later stage, I didn't add any tests.
Now I have manually verified the default impls of the visitor trait to check whether we have missed any other opportunity to visit more stuff and coudln't find anything (except the missing `break` visit I've fixed in #50829 but that one was already r+'d so I didn't want to push more commits).
This turns an ICE on this code:
fn main() {
|_: [u8; break]| ();
}
from
'assertion failed: self.tcx.sess.err_count() > 0', librustc_typeck/check/mod.rs
to
librustc_mir/hair/cx/expr.rs:543: invalid loop id for break: not inside loop scope
which is at a later stage during compilation and most importantly
fixes of bug #50576 will fix this as well.
tidy: Add a check for empty UI test files
Check for empty `.stderr` and `.stdout` files in UI test directories.
Empty files could still pass testing for `compile-pass` tests with no output
so they can get into the repo accidentally, but they are not necessary and can
be removed.
This is very much an in progress pull request. I'm having an issue with rustfmt. It wanted to reformat the entire file for almost every file by default. And when I run tidy it just errors out because it catches the empty files that are already in the repo.
My next step is goin got be to remove those empty file and see if running tidy again will actually reformat things outside of the context of `cargo fmt`
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50785
When we want to implement label-break-value,
we can't really decide whether to emit ScopeTarget::Loop or
ScopeTarget::Block in the code that is supposed to create it.
So we get rid of it and reconstruct the information when
needed.
