8813: Get some more array lengths! r=lf- a=lf-
This is built on #8799 and thus contains its changes. I'll rebase it onto master when that one gets merged. It adds support for r-a understanding the length of:
* `let a: [u8; 2] = ...`
* `let a = b"aaa"`
* `let a = [0u8; 4]`
I have added support for getting the values of byte strings, which was not previously there. I am least confident in the correctness of this part and it probably needs some more tests, as we currently have only one test that exercised that part (!).
Fixes#2922.
Co-authored-by: Jade <software@lfcode.ca>
Fix#2922: add unknown length as a condition for a type having unknown.
Incorporate reviews:
* Extract some of the const evaluation workings into functions
* Add fixmes on the hacks
* Add tests for impls on specific array lengths (these work!!! 😁)
* Add tests for const generics (indeed we don't support it yet)
8799: Add basic support for array lengths in types r=flodiebold a=lf-
This recognizes `let a = [1u8, 2, 3]` as having type `[u8; 3]` instead
of the previous `[u8; _]`. Byte strings and `[0u8; 2]` kinds of range
array declarations are unsupported as before.
I don't know why a bunch of our rustc tests had single quotes inside
strings un-escaped by `UPDATE_EXPECT=1 cargo t`, but I don't think it's
bad? Maybe something in a nightly?
Co-authored-by: Jade <software@lfcode.ca>
This recognizes `let a = [1u8, 2, 3]` as having type `[u8; 3]` instead
of the previous `[u8; _]`. Byte strings and `[0u8; 2]` kinds of range
array declarations are unsupported as before.
I don't know why a bunch of our rustc tests had single quotes inside
strings un-escaped by `UPDATE_EXPECT=1 cargo t`, but I don't think it's
bad? Maybe something in a nightly?
8432: decl_check: consider outer scopes' allows r=jonas-schievink a=lf-
Fix#8417. Also makes it less noisy about no_mangle annotated stuff the
user can do nothing about.
Note: this still is broken with bitfield! macros. A repro in an ignore
test is included here. I believe this bug is elsewhere, and I don't
think I can work around it here.
I would like help filing the remaining bug, as it does actually affect
users, but I don't know how to describe the behaviour (or even if it
is unintended).
Co-authored-by: Jade <software@lfcode.ca>
This condition should always be true for *valid* code, but of course
there might be invalid code or things that we can't currently resolve.
Fixes#8464.
