and replace it with a simple note suggesting
returning a value.
The type mismatch error was never due to
how many times the loop iterates. It is more
because of the peculiar structure of what the for
loop desugars to. So the note talking about
iteration count didn't make sense
typeck: fix `?` suggestion span
Noticed in <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112043#issuecomment-2043565292>, if the
```
use the `?` operator to extract the `Result<(), std::fmt::Error>` value, propagating a `Result::Err` value to the caller
```
suggestion is applied to a macro that comes from a non-local crate (e.g. the stdlib), the suggestion span can become non-local, which will cause newer rustfix versions to fail.
This PR tries to remedy the problem by recursively probing ancestors of the expression span, trying to identify the most ancestor span that is (1) still local, and (2) still shares the same syntax context as the expression.
This is the same strategy used in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112043.
The test unfortunately cannot `//@ run-rustfix` because there are two conflicting MaybeIncorrect suggestions that when collectively applied, cause the fixed source file to become non-compilable.
Also avoid running `//@ run-rustfix` for `tests/ui/typeck/issue-112007-leaked-writeln-macro-internals.rs` because that also contains conflicting suggestions.
cc `@ehuss` who noticed this. This question mark span fix + not running rustfix on the tests containing conflicting MaybeIncorrect suggestions should hopefully unblock rustfix from updating.
Note that the caller chooses a type for type param
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> $DIR/return-impl-trait.rs:23:5
|
LL | fn other_bounds<T>() -> T
| - -
| | |
| | expected `T` because of return type
| | help: consider using an impl return type: `impl Trait`
| expected this type parameter
...
LL | ()
| ^^ expected type parameter `T`, found `()`
|
= note: expected type parameter `T`
found unit type `()`
= note: the caller chooses the type of T which can be different from ()
```
Tried to see if "expected this type parameter" can be replaced, but that goes all the way to `rustc_infer` so seems not worth the effort and can affect other diagnostics.
Revives #112088 and #104755.
Make `type_ascribe!` not a built-in
The only weird thing is the macro expansion note. I wonder if we should suppress these 🤔
r? ````@fmease```` since you told me about builtin# lol
```
error: `S2<'_>` is forbidden as the type of a const generic parameter
--> $DIR/lifetime-in-const-param.rs:5:23
|
LL | struct S<'a, const N: S2>(&'a ());
| ^^
|
= note: the only supported types are integers, `bool` and `char`
help: add `#![feature(adt_const_params)]` to the crate attributes to enable more complex and user defined types
|
LL + #![feature(adt_const_params)]
|
```
Fix#55941.
By just emitting them immediately, because it does happen in practice,
when errors are downgraded to delayed bugs.
We already had one case in `lint.rs` where we handled this at the
callsite. This commit changes things so it's handled within
`stash_diagnostic` instead, because #121812 identified a second case,
and it's possible there are more.
Fixes#121812.
Always evaluate free constants and statics, even if previous errors occurred
work towards https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79738
We will need to evaluate static items before the `definitions.freeze()` below, as we will start creating new `DefId`s (for nested allocations) within the `eval_static_initializer` query.
But even without that motivation, this is a good change. Hard errors should always be reported and not silenced if other errors happened earlier.
Change leak check and suspicious auto trait lint warning messages
The leak check lint message "this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out; it will become a hard error in a future release!" is misleading as some cases may not be phased out and could end being accepted. This is under discussion still.
The suspicious auto trait lint the change in behavior already happened, so the new message is probably more accurate.
r? `@lcnr`
Closes#93367
Loosen an assertion to account for stashed errors.
The meaning of this assertion changed in #120828 when the meaning of `has_errors` changed to exclude stashed errors. Evidently the new meaning is too restrictive.
Fixes#120856.
r? ```@oli-obk```
The meaning of this assertion changed in #120828 when the meaning of
`has_errors` changed to exclude stashed errors. Evidently the new
meaning is too restrictive.
Fixes#120856.
