Cleanup `rustc_mir_build/../check_match.rs`
The file had become pretty unwieldy, with a fair amount of duplication. As a bonus, I discovered that we weren't running some pattern checks in if-let chains.
I recommend looking commit-by-commit. The last commit is a whim, I think it makes more sense that way but I don't hold this opinion strongly.
Allows `#[diagnostic::on_unimplemented]` attributes to have multiple
notes
This commit extends the `#[diagnostic::on_unimplemented]` (and `#[rustc_on_unimplemented]`) attributes to allow multiple `note` options. This enables emitting multiple notes for custom error messages. For now I've opted to not change any of the existing usages of `#[rustc_on_unimplemented]` and just updated the relevant compile tests.
r? `@compiler-errors`
I'm happy to adjust any of the existing changed location to emit the old error message if that's desired.
Allow partially moved values in match
This PR attempts to unify the behaviour between `let _ = PLACE`, `let _: TY = PLACE;` and `match PLACE { _ => {} }`.
The logical conclusion is that the `match` version should not check for uninitialised places nor check that borrows are still live.
The `match PLACE {}` case is handled by keeping a `FakeRead` in the unreachable fallback case to verify that `PLACE` has a legal value.
Schematically, `match PLACE { arms }` in surface rust becomes in MIR:
```rust
PlaceMention(PLACE)
match PLACE {
// Decision tree for the explicit arms
arms,
// An extra fallback arm
_ => {
FakeRead(ForMatchedPlace, PLACE);
unreachable
}
}
```
`match *borrow { _ => {} }` continues to check that `*borrow` is live, but does not read the value.
`match *borrow {}` both checks that `*borrow` is live, and fake-reads the value.
Continuation of ~https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102256~ ~https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104844~
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99180https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53114
notes
This commit extends the `#[diagnostic::on_unimplemented]` (and
`#[rustc_on_unimplemented]`) attributes to allow multiple `note`
options. This enables emitting multiple notes for custom error messages.
For now I've opted to not change any of the existing usages of
`#[rustc_on_unimplemented]` and just updated the relevant compile tests.
Mention the syntax for `use` on `mod foo;` if `foo` doesn't exist
Newcomers might get confused that `mod` is the only way of defining scopes, and that it can be used as if it were `use`.
Fix#69492.
Lint `non_exhaustive_omitted_patterns` by columns
This is a rework of the `non_exhaustive_omitted_patterns` lint to make it more consistent. The intent of the lint is to help consumers of `non_exhaustive` enums ensure they stay up-to-date with all upstream variants. This rewrite fixes two cases we didn't handle well before:
First, because of details of exhaustiveness checking, the following wouldn't lint `Enum::C` as missing:
```rust
match Some(x) {
Some(Enum::A) => {}
Some(Enum::B) => {}
_ => {}
}
```
Second, because of the fundamental workings of exhaustiveness checking, the following would treat the `true` and `false` cases separately and thus lint about missing variants:
```rust
match (true, x) {
(true, Enum::A) => {}
(true, Enum::B) => {}
(false, Enum::C) => {}
_ => {}
}
```
Moreover, it would correctly not lint in the case where the pair is flipped, because of asymmetry in how exhaustiveness checking proceeds.
A drawback is that it no longer makes sense to set the lint level per-arm. This will silently break the lint for current users of it (but it's behind a feature gate so that's ok).
The new approach is now independent of the exhaustiveness algorithm; it's a separate pass that looks at patterns column by column. This is another of the motivations for this: I'm glad to move it out of the algorithm, it was akward there.
This PR is almost identical to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111651. cc `@eholk` who reviewed it at the time. Compared to then, I'm more confident this is the right approach.
Previously, any associated function could have `~const` trait bounds on
generic parameters, which could lead to ICEs when these bounds were used
on associated functions of non-`#[const_trait] trait` or
non-`impl const` blocks.
Includes changes as per @fee1-dead's comments in #116210.
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #115770 (Match on elem first while building move paths)
- #115999 (Capture scrutinee of if let guards correctly)
- #116056 (Make unsized casts illegal)
- #116061 (Remove TaKO8Ki from review rotation)
- #116062 (Change `start` to `#[start]` in some diagnosis)
- #116067 (Open the FileEncoder file for reading and writing)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
[breaking change] Validate crate name in `--extern` [MCP 650]
Reject non-ASCII-identifier crate names passed to the CLI option `--extern` (`rustc`, `rustdoc`).
Implements [MCP 650](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/650) (except that we only allow ASCII identifiers not arbitrary Rust identifiers).
Fixes#113035.
[As mentioned on Zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/233931-t-compiler.2Fmajor-changes/topic/Disallow.20non-identifier-valid.20--extern.20cr.E2.80.A6.20compiler-team.23650/near/376826988), doing a crater run probably doesn't make sense since it wouldn't yield anything. Most users don't interact with `rustc` directly but only ever through Cargo which always passes a valid crate name to `--extern` when it invokes `rustc` and `rustdoc`. In any case, the user wouldn't be able to use such a crate name in the source code anyway.
Note that I'm not using [`rustc_session::output::validate_crate_name`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_session/output/fn.validate_crate_name.html) (used for `--crate-name` and `#![crate_name]`) since the latter doesn't reject non-ASCII crate names and ones that start with a digit.
As an aside, I've also thought about getting rid of `validate_crate_name` entirely in a separate PR (with another MCP) in favor of `is_ascii_ident` to reject more weird `--crate-name`s, `#![crate_name]`s and file names but I think that would lead to a lot of actual breakage, namely because of file names starting with a digit. In `tests/ui` 9 tests would be impacted for example.
CC `@estebank`
r? `@est31`
Fallback effects even if types also fallback
`||` is short circuiting, so if we do ty/int var fallback, we *don't* do effect fallback 😸
r? `@fee1-dead` or `@oli-obk`
Fixes#115791Fixes#115842
Improve invalid let expression handling
- Move all of the checks for valid let expression positions to parsing.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location.
- Suppress some later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
- Fix a (drop) scope issue that was also responsible for #104172.
Fixes#104172Fixes#104868
- Add doc comment to new type
- Restore "only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions" note
- Rename variant with clearer name
Previously some invalid let expressions would result in both a feature
error and a parsing error. Avoid this and ensure that we only emit the
parsing error when this happens.
There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second
version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid
uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later
passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid
location, sometimes causing ICEs.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a
valid location.
- Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let
expressions.
Lower `Or` pattern without allocating place
cc `@azizghuloum` `@cjgillot`
Related to #111583 and #111644
While reviewing #111644, it occurs to me that while we directly lower conjunctive predicates, which are connected with `&&`, into the desirable control flow, today we don't directly lower the disjunctive predicates, which are connected with `||`, in the similar fashion. Instead, we allocate a place for the boolean temporary to hold the result of evaluating the `||` expression.
Usually I would expect optimization at later stages to "inline" the evaluation of boolean predicates into simple CFG, but #111583 is an example where `&&` is failing to be optimized away and the assembly shows that both the expensive operands are evaluated. Therefore, I would like to make a small change to make the CFG a bit more straight-forward without invoking the `as_temp` machinery, and plus avoid allocating the place to hold the boolean result as well.
