Detect unused structs which derived Default
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
Fixes#98871
`-Z patchable-function-entry` works like `-fpatchable-function-entry`
on clang/gcc. The arguments are total nop count and function offset.
See MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#704
De-duplicate all consecutive native libs regardless of their options
Address https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126913#issuecomment-2188184011 by no longer de-duplicating based on the "options" but by only looking at the generated link args, as to avoid consecutive libs that originated from different native-lib with different options (like `raw-dylib` on Windows) but isn't relevant for `--print=native-static-libs`.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
Don't suggest awaiting in closure patterns
Fixes#126903.
For
```rust
async fn do_async() {}
fn main() {
Some(do_async()).map(|()| {});
}
```
the error is now
```rust
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:4:27
|
4 | Some(do_async()).map(|()| {});
| ^^
| |
| expected future, found `()`
| expected due to this
|
= note: expected opaque type `impl Future<Output = ()>`
found unit type `()`
```
Ideally, if `main` were to be `async`, it should be
```rs
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:4:27
|
4 | Some(do_async()).map(|()| {});
| ^^
| |
| expected future, found `()`
| expected due to this
|
= note: expected opaque type `impl Future<Output = ()>`
found unit type `()`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | Some(do_async().await).map(|()| {});
| ++++++
```
However, this would mean `FnCtx::check_pat_top` would have to be called with an `origin_expr` in `rustc_hir_typeck::check::check_fn`, and that expr would have to be somehow plumbed through `FnCtxt::check_expr_closure` and closure signature deduction. I'm willing to work on the plumbing but unsure how to start.
Eliminate the distinction between PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN precedence level
I have been tangling with precedence as part of porting some pretty-printer improvements from syn back to rustc (related to parenthesization of closures, returns, and breaks by the AST pretty-printer).
As far as I have been able to tell, there is no difference between the 2 different precedence levels that rustc identifies as `PREC_POSTFIX` (field access, square bracket index, question mark, method call) and `PREC_PAREN` (loops, if, paths, literals).
There are a bunch of places that look at either `prec < PREC_POSTFIX` or `prec >= PREC_POSTFIX`. But there is nothing that needs to distinguish PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN from one another.
d49994b060/compiler/rustc_ast/src/util/parser.rs (L236-L237)d49994b060/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs (L2829)d49994b060/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs (L1290)
In the interest of eliminating a distinction without a difference, this PR collapses these 2 levels down to 1.
There is exactly 1 case where an expression with PREC_POSTFIX precedence needs to be parenthesized in a location that an expression with PREC_PAREN would not, and that's when the receiver of ExprKind::MethodCall is ExprKind::Field. `x.f()` means a different thing than `(x.f)()`. But this does not justify having separate precedence levels because this special case in the grammar is not governed by precedence. Field access does not have "lower precedence than" method call syntax — you can tell because if it did, then `x.f[0].f()` wouldn't be able to have its unparenthesized field access in the receiver of a method call. Because this Field/MethodCall special case is not governed by precedence, it already requires special handling and is not affected by eliminating the PREC_POSTFIX precedence level.
d49994b060/compiler/rustc_ast_pretty/src/pprust/state/expr.rs (L217-L221)
Eliminate the distinction between PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN precedence level
I have been tangling with precedence as part of porting some pretty-printer improvements from syn back to rustc (related to parenthesization of closures, returns, and breaks by the AST pretty-printer).
As far as I have been able to tell, there is no difference between the 2 different precedence levels that rustc identifies as `PREC_POSTFIX` (field access, square bracket index, question mark, method call) and `PREC_PAREN` (loops, if, paths, literals).
There are a bunch of places that look at either `prec < PREC_POSTFIX` or `prec >= PREC_POSTFIX`. But there is nothing that needs to distinguish PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN from one another.
d49994b060/compiler/rustc_ast/src/util/parser.rs (L236-L237)d49994b060/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs (L2829)d49994b060/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs (L1290)
In the interest of eliminating a distinction without a difference, this PR collapses these 2 levels down to 1.
There is exactly 1 case where an expression with PREC_POSTFIX precedence needs to be parenthesized in a location that an expression with PREC_PAREN would not, and that's when the receiver of ExprKind::MethodCall is ExprKind::Field. `x.f()` means a different thing than `(x.f)()`. But this does not justify having separate precedence levels because this special case in the grammar is not governed by precedence. Field access does not have "lower precedence than" method call syntax — you can tell because if it did, then `x.f[0].f()` wouldn't be able to have its unparenthesized field access in the receiver of a method call. Because this Field/MethodCall special case is not governed by precedence, it already requires special handling and is not affected by eliminating the PREC_POSTFIX precedence level.
d49994b060/compiler/rustc_ast_pretty/src/pprust/state/expr.rs (L217-L221)
Do not ICE when suggesting dereferencing closure arg
Account for `for` lifetimes when constructing closure to see if dereferencing the return value would be valid.
Fix#125634, fix#124563.
Deny `use<>` for RPITITs
Precise capturing `use<>` syntax is currently a no-op on RPITITs, since GATs have no variance, so all captured lifetimes are captured invariantly.
We don't currently *need* to support `use<>` on RPITITs, since `use<>` is initially intended for migrating RPIT *overcaptures* from edition 2021->2024, but since RPITITs currently capture all in-scope lifetimes, we'll never need to write `use<>` on an RPITIT.
Eventually, though, it would be desirable to support precise capturing on RPITITs, since RPITITs overcapturing by default can be annoying to some folks. But let's separate that (which will likely require some delicate types team work for adding variances to GATs and adjusting the refinement rules) from the stabilization of the feature for edition 2024.
r? oli-obk cc ``@traviscross``
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123432
ast: Standardize visiting order for attributes and node IDs
This should only affect `macro_rules` scopes and order of diagnostics.
Also add a deprecation lint for `macro_rules` called outside of their scope, like in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124535.
ast: Standardize visiting order for attributes and node IDs
This should only affect `macro_rules` scopes and order of diagnostics.
Also add a deprecation lint for `macro_rules` called outside of their scope, like in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124535.
Various refactorings to rustc_interface
This should make it easier to move the driver interface away from queries in the future. Many custom drivers call queries like `queries.global_ctxt()` before they are supposed to be called, breaking some things like certain `--print` and `-Zunpretty` options, `-Zparse-only` and emitting the dep info at the wrong point in time. They are also not actually necessary at all. Passing around the query output manually would avoid recomputation too and would be just as easy. Removing driver queries would also reduce the amount of global mutable state of the compiler. I'm not removing driver queries in this PR to avoid breaking the aforementioned custom drivers.
It was somewhat confusing that the old constructor would create a `FlatPat` in
a (possibly) non-simplified state, and then simplify its contents in-place.
So instead we now create its fields as local variables, perform simplification,
and then create the struct afterwards.
This doesn't affect correctness, but is less confusing.
transmute size check: properly account for alignment
Fixes another place where ZST alignment was ignored when checking whether something is a newtype. I wonder how many more of these there are...
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/101084
This suite tests all library functions that are now available for the
types. Tests are only run on certain platforms where `f16` and `f128`
are known to work (have symbols available and don't crash LLVM).
This adds everything that was directly or transitively blocked on const
arithmetic for these types, which was recently merged.
Since const arithmetic is recent, most of these need to be gated by
`bootstrap`.
Anything that relies on intrinsics that are still missing is excluded.
The symbols that these tests rely on are not available on all platforms
and some ABIs are buggy, tests that rely on external functions are
configured to only run on x86 (`f128`) or aarch64 (`f16`).
There are some complexities about what platforms we can test f16 and
f128 on. Put this in build.rs so we have an easy way to configure tests
with a single attribute, and keep it up to date.
Allow constraining opaque types during various unsizing casts
allows unsizing of tuples, arrays and Adts to constraint opaque types in their generic parameters to concrete types on either side of the unsizing cast.
Also allows constraining opaque types during trait object casts that only differ in auto traits or lifetimes.
cc #116652
This was added (with a different name) to improve an error message. It
is no longer needed -- removing it changes the error message, but overall
I think the new message is no worse:
- the mention of `#` in the first line is a little worse,
- but the extra context makes it very clear what the problem is, perhaps
even clearer than the old message,
- and the removal of the note about the `expr` fragment (an internal
detail of `__rust_force_expr`) is an improvement.
Overall I think the error is quite clear and still far better than the
old message that prompted #61933, which didn't even mention patterns.
The motivation for this is #124141, which will cause pasted
metavariables to be tokenized and reparsed instead of the AST node being
cached. This change in behaviour occasionally has a non-zero perf cost,
and `__rust_force_expr` causes the tokenize/reparse step to occur twice.
Removing `__rust_force_expr` greatly reduces the extra overhead for the
`deep-vector` benchmark.
Just some extra sanity checking, making explicit some values not
possible in code working with token trees -- we shouldn't be seeing
explicit delimiter tokens, because they should be represented as
`TokenTree::Delimited`.
`T: VaArgSafe` is relied on for soundness. Safe impls promise nothing.
Therefore this must be an unsafe trait. Slightly pedantic, as
only core can impl this, but we could choose to unseal the trait.
That would allow soundly (but unsafely) implementing this for e.g.
a `#[repr(C)] struct` that should be passable by varargs.
