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`
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
Replace nbsp in all rustdoc code blocks
Based on #106125 by `@dtolnay` — this PR fixes the line wrapping bug.
Fixes#106098. This makes code copyable from rustdoc rendered documentation into a Rust source file.
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
Remove both StorageLive and StorageDead in CopyProp.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107511https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106908 removed StorageDead without the accompanying StorageLive. In loops, execution would see repeated StorageLive, without any StorageDead, which is UB.
So when removing storage statements, we have to remove both StorageLive and StorageDead.
~I also added a MIR validation pass for StorageLive. It may be a bit overzealous.~
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`?
Fix syntax in `-Zunpretty-expanded` output for derived `PartialEq`.
If you do `derive(PartialEq)` on a packed struct, the output shown by `-Zunpretty=expanded` includes expressions like this:
```
{ self.x } == { other.x }
```
This is invalid syntax. This doesn't break compilation, because the AST nodes are constructed within the compiler. But it does mean anyone using `-Zunpretty=expanded` output as a guide for hand-written impls could get a nasty surprise.
This commit fixes things by instead using this form:
```
({ self.x }) == ({ other.x })
```
r? ``@RalfJung``
Remove confusing 'while checking' note from opaque future type mismatches
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the wording of the note. The only value I can see in this note is that it points out where the async's opaque future is coming from, but the way it's doing it is misleading IMO.
For example:
```rust
note: while checking the return type of the `async fn`
--> $DIR/dont-suggest-missing-await.rs:7:24
|
LL | async fn make_u32() -> u32 {
| ^^^ checked the `Output` of this `async fn`, found opaque type
```
We point at the type `u32` in the HIR, but then say "found opaque type". We also say "while checking"... but we're typechecking a totally different function when we get this type mismatch!
r? ``@estebank`` but feel free to reassign and/or take your time reviewing this. I'd be inclined to also discuss reworking the presentation of this type mismatch to restore some of these labels in a way that makes it more clear what it's trying to point out.
bors
