Implement new effects desugaring
cc `@rust-lang/project-const-traits.` Will write down notes once I have finished.
* [x] See if we want `T: Tr` to desugar into `T: Tr, T::Effects: Compat<true>`
* [x] Fix ICEs on `type Assoc: ~const Tr` and `type Assoc<T: ~const Tr>`
* [ ] add types and traits to minicore test
* [ ] update rustc-dev-guide
Fixes#119717Fixes#123664Fixes#124857Fixes#126148
Rename `super_predicates_of` and similar queries to `explicit_*` to note that they're not elaborated
Rename:
* `super_predicates_of` -> `explicit_super_predicates_of`
* `implied_predicates_of` -> `explicit_implied_predicates_of`
* `supertraits_containing_assoc_item` -> `explicit_supertraits_containing_assoc_item`
This makes it clearer that, unlike (for example) [`TyCtxt::super_traits_of`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/context/struct.TyCtxt.html#method.super_traits_of), we don't automatically elaborate this set of predicates.
r? ``@lcnr`` or ``@oli-obk`` or someone from t-types idc
Tighten `fn_decl_span` for async blocks
Tightens the span of `async {}` blocks in diagnostics, and subsequently async closures and async fns, by actually setting the `fn_decl_span` correctly. This is kinda a follow-up on #125078, but it fixes the problem in a more general way.
I think the diagnostics are significantly improved, since we no longer have a bunch of overlapping spans. I'll point out one caveat where I think the diagnostic may get a bit more confusing, but where I don't think it matters.
r? ````@estebank```` or ````@oli-obk```` or someone else on wg-diag or compiler i dont really care lol
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)
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.
Fix `...` in multline code-skips in suggestions
When we have long code skips, we write `...` in the line number gutter.
For suggestions, we were "centering" the `...` with the line, but that was inconsistent with what we do in every other case *and* off-center.
When we have long code skips, we write `...` in the line number gutter.
For suggestions, we were "centering" the `...` with the line, but that was consistent with what we do in every other case.
This removes the ICE codepaths for `f16` and `f128` in Clippy.
`rustc_apfloat` is used as a dependency for the parsing of these types,
since their `FromStr` implementation will not be available in the
standard library for a while.
When both `std::` and `core::` items are available, only suggest the
`std::` ones. We ensure that in `no_std` crates we suggest `core::`
items.
Ensure that the list of items suggested to be imported are always in the
order of local crate items, `std`/`core` items and finally foreign crate
items.
Tweak wording of import suggestion: if there are multiple items but they
are all of the same kind, we use the kind name and not the generic "items".
Fix#83564.
Revert: create const block bodies in typeck via query feeding
as per the discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125806#discussion_r1622563948
It was a mistake to try to shoehorn const blocks and some specific anon consts into the same box and feed them during typeck. It turned out not simplifying anything (my hope was that we could feed `type_of` to start avoiding the huge HIR matcher, but that didn't work out), but instead making a few things more fragile.
reverts the const-block-specific parts of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124650
`@bors` rollup=never had a small perf impact previously
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125846
r? `@compiler-errors`
Revert "Disallow ambiguous attributes on expressions" on nightly
As discussed in [today's t-compiler meeting](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/238009-t-compiler.2Fmeetings/topic/.5Bweekly.5D.202024-06-06/near/443079505), this reverts PR #124099 to fix P-critical beta regressions #125199.
r? ``@wesleywiser``
Opening as draft so that ``@wesleywiser`` and ``@apiraino,`` you can tell me whether you wanted:
1. a `beta-accepted` revert of #124099 on nightly (this PR)? That will need to be backported to beta (even though #126093 may be the last of those)
2. a revert of #124099 on beta?
3. all of the above?
I also opened #126102, another draft PR to revert #124099 on beta, should you choose options 2 or 3.
Currently we have an awkward mix of fallible and infallible functions:
```
new_parser_from_source_str
maybe_new_parser_from_source_str
new_parser_from_file
(maybe_new_parser_from_file) // missing
(new_parser_from_source_file) // missing
maybe_new_parser_from_source_file
source_str_to_stream
maybe_source_file_to_stream
```
We could add the two missing functions, but instead this commit removes
of all the infallible ones and renames the fallible ones leaving us with
these which are all fallible:
```
new_parser_from_source_str
new_parser_from_file
new_parser_from_source_file
source_str_to_stream
source_file_to_stream
```
This requires making `unwrap_or_emit_fatal` public so callers of
formerly infallible functions can still work.
This does make some of the call sites slightly more verbose, but I think
it's worth it for the simpler API. Also, there are two `catch_unwind`
calls and one `catch_fatal_errors` call in this diff that become
removable thanks this change. (I will do that in a follow-up PR.)
