Rollup of 7 pull requests #111283
Closed
Rollup of 7 pull requests #111283
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This greatly simplifies how hard it is to set a custom bug report url; previously tools had to copy the entire hook implementation. - Switch clippy to the new hook This also adds a `extra_info` callback so clippy can include its own version number, which differs from rustc's. - Call `install_ice_hook` in rustfmt
When we're adding a method to a type DIE, we only want a DW_AT_declaration there, because LLVM LTO can't unify type definitions when a child DIE is a full subprogram definition. Now the subprogram definition gets added at the CU level with a specification link back to the abstract declaration.
UTF-8 checking in `const fn`-stabilized back in 1.63, but apparently somehow ASCII checking was never const-ified, despite being simpler.
…ts with custom items
… r=lcnr Use fulfillment to check `Drop` impl compatibility Use an `ObligationCtxt` to ensure that a `Drop` impl does not have stricter requirements than the ADT that it's implemented for, rather than using a `SimpleEqRelation` to (more or less) syntactically equate predicates on an ADT with predicates on an impl. r? types ### Some background The old code reads: ```rust // An earlier version of this code attempted to do this checking // via the traits::fulfill machinery. However, it ran into trouble // since the fulfill machinery merely turns outlives-predicates // 'a:'b and T:'b into region inference constraints. It is simpler // just to look for all the predicates directly. ``` I'm not sure what this means, but perhaps in the 8 years since that this comment was written (cc rust-lang#23638) it's gotten easier to process region constraints after doing fulfillment? I don't know how this logic differs from anything we do in the `compare_impl_item` module. Ironically, later on it says: ```rust // However, it may be more efficient in the future to batch // the analysis together via the fulfill (see comment above regarding // the usage of the fulfill machinery), rather than the // repeated `.iter().any(..)` calls. ``` Also: * Removes `SimpleEqRelation` which was far too syntactical in its relation. * Fixes rust-lang#110557
Add Terminator conversion from MIR to SMIR, part #1 This adds internal MIR TerminatorKind to SMIR Terminator conversion. r? ``@oli-obk``
Make the BUG_REPORT_URL configurable by tools This greatly simplifies how hard it is to set a custom bug report url; previously tools had to copy the entire hook implementation. I haven't changed clippy in case they want to make the change upstream instead of the subtree, but I'm happy to do so here if the maintainers want - cc ```@rust-lang/clippy``` Fixes rust-lang#109486.
…michaelwoerister debuginfo: split method declaration and definition When we're adding a method to a type DIE, we only want a DW_AT_declaration there, because LLVM LTO can't unify type definitions when a child DIE is a full subprogram definition. Now the subprogram definition gets added at the CU level with a specification link back to the abstract declaration. Both GCC and Clang write debuginfo this way for C++ class methods. Fixes rust-lang#109730. Fixes rust-lang#109934.
Constify `[u8]::is_ascii` (unstably) UTF-8 checking in `const fn`-stabilized back in 1.63 (rust-lang#97367), but apparently somehow ASCII checking was never const-ified, despite being simpler. New constness-tracking issue for `is_ascii`: rust-lang#111090 I noticed this working on `ascii::Char`: rust-lang#110998
…mpiler-errors
add hint for =< as <=
Adds a compiler hint for when `=<` is typed instead of `<=`
Example hint:
```rust
fn foo() {
if 1 =< 3 {
println!("Hello, World!");
}
}
```
```
error: expected type, found `3`
--> main.rs:2:13
|
2 | if 1 =< 3 {
| -- ^ expected type
| |
| help: did you mean: `<=`
```
This PR only emits the suggestion if there is no space between the `=` and `<`. This hopefully narrows the scope of when this error is emitted, however this still allows this error to be emitted in cases such as this:
```
error: expected expression, found `;`
--> main.rs:2:18
|
2 | if 1 =< [i32;; 3]>::hello() {
| -- ^ expected expression
| |
| help: did you mean: `<=`
```
Which could be a good reason not to merge since I haven't been able to think of any other ways of narrowing the scope of this diagnostic.
closes rust-lang#111128
… r=cjgillot More robust debug assertions for `Instance::resolve` on built-in traits with non-standard trait items In rust-lang#111264, a user added a new item to the `Future` trait, but the code in [`resolve_associated_item`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_ty_utils/instance/fn.resolve_associated_item.html) implicitly assumes that the `Future` trait is defined with only one method (`Future::poll`) and treats the generator body as the implementation of that method. This PR adds some debug assertions to make sure that that new methods defined on `Future`/`Generator`/etc. don't accidentally resolve to the wrong item when they are added, and adds a helpful comment guiding a compiler dev (or curious `#![no_core]` user) to what must be done to support adding new associated items to these built-in implementations. I am open to discuss whether a test should be added, but I chose against it because I opted to make these `bug!()`s instead of, e.g., diagnostics or fatal errors. Arguably it doesn't need a test because it's not a bug that can be triggered by an end user, and internal-facing misuses of core kind of touch on rust-lang/compiler-team#620 -- however, I think the assertions I added in this PR are still a very useful way to make sure this bug doesn't waste debugging resources down the line. Fixes rust-lang#111264
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=7 |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
⌛ Testing commit 1783a35 with merge 414ee199efc9564d48be83b772c7a755b694b7c5... |
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Successful merges:
Dropimpl compatibility #110577 (Use fulfillment to checkDropimpl compatibility)[u8]::is_ascii(unstably) #111222 (Constify[u8]::is_ascii(unstably))Instance::resolveon built-in traits with non-standard trait items #111279 (More robust debug assertions forInstance::resolveon built-in traits with non-standard trait items)Failed merges:
r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup