Checking that function is const if marked with rustc_const_unstable
Fixes#69630
This one is still missing tests to check the behavior but I checked by hand and it seemed to work.
I would not mind some direction for writing those unit tests!
remove trailing newline
fix: test with attribute but missing const
Update compiler/rustc_passes/src/stability.rs
Co-authored-by: Léo Lanteri Thauvin <leseulartichaut@gmail.com>
Add test for extern functions
fix: using span_help instead of span_suggestion
add test for some ABIs + fmt fix
Update compiler/rustc_passes/src/stability.rs
Co-authored-by: Léo Lanteri Thauvin <leseulartichaut@gmail.com>
Refractor and add test for `impl const`
Add test to make sure no output + cleanup condition
-----------------------------
remove stdcall test, failing CI test
C abi is already tested in this, so it is not that useful to test another one.
The tested code is blind to which specific ABI for now, as long as it's not an intrinsic one
E0716: clarify that equivalent code example is erroneous
In E0716, there is a code block that is equivalent to the erroneous
code example. Especially when viewed with `rustc --explain`, it's
not obvious that it is also erroneous, and some users have been
confused when they try to change their code to match the erroneous
equivalent.
`@rustbot` label +A-diagnostics +D-newcomer-roadblock +T-compiler
In E0716, there is a code block that is equivalent to the erroneous
code example. Especially when viewed with `rustc --explain`, it's
not obvious that it is also erroneous, and some users have been
confused when they try to change their code to match the erroneous
equivalent.
Check the number of generic lifetime and const parameters of intrinsics
This pull request fixes#85855. The current code for type checking intrinsics only checks the number of generic _type_ parameters, but does not check for an incorrect number of lifetime or const parameters, which can cause problems later on, such as the ICE in #85855, where the code thought that it was looking at a type parameter but found a lifetime parameter:
```
error: internal compiler error: compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/generics.rs:188:18:
expected type parameter, but found another generic parameter
```
The changes in this PR add checks for the number of lifetime and const parameters, expand the scope of `E0094` to also apply to these cases, and improve the error message by properly pluralizing the number of expected generic parameters.
Permit zero non-zero-field on transparent types
Fixes#77841
This makes the transparent fields meet the below:
> * A `repr(transparent)` type `T` must meet the following rules:
> * It may have any number of 1-ZST fields
> * In addition, it may have at most one other field of type U
r? `@nikomatsakis`
When having the order
```
foo.bar(); // we can now use this method since i32 implements the Foo trait
[...]
impl Foo for i32
```
the `// we can now use this method` comment is less clear to me.
Update BARE_TRAIT_OBJECT and ELLIPSIS_INCLUSIVE_RANGE_PATTERNS to errors in Rust 2021
This addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81244 by updating two lints to errors in the Rust 2021 edition.
r? `@estebank`
further split up const_fn feature flag
This continues the work on splitting up `const_fn` into separate feature flags:
* `const_fn_trait_bound` for `const fn` with trait bounds
* `const_fn_unsize` for unsizing coercions in `const fn` (looks like only `dyn` unsizing is still guarded here)
I don't know if there are even any things left that `const_fn` guards... at least libcore and liballoc do not need it any more.
`@oli-obk` are you currently able to do reviews?
Stablize `non-ascii-idents`
This is the stablization PR for RFC 2457. Currently this is waiting on fcp in [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55467).
r? `@Manishearth`
Add incomplete feature gate for inherent associate types.
Mentored by ``````@oli-obk``````
So far the only change is that instead of giving an automatic error, the following code compiles:
```rust
struct Foo;
impl Foo {
type Bar = isize;
}
```
The backend work to make it actually usable isn't there yet. In particular, this:
```rust
let x : Foo::Bar;
```
will give you:
```sh
error[E0223]: ambiguous associated type
--> /$RUSTC_DIR/src/test/ui/assoc-inherent.rs:15:13
|
LL | let x : Foo::Bar;
| ^^^^^^^^ help: use fully-qualified syntax: `<Foo as Trait>::Bar`
```
- Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links`
- Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors
- Register lints even when running doctests
Otherwise, all `rustdoc::` lints would be ignored.
- Register all existing lints as removed
This unfortunately doesn't work with `register_renamed` because tool
lints have not yet been registered when rustc is running. For similar
reasons, `check_backwards_compat` doesn't work either. Call
`register_removed` directly instead.
- Fix fallout
+ Rustdoc lints for compiler/
+ Rustdoc lints for library/
Note that this does *not* suggest `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` for
`rustdoc::intra_doc_link_resolution_failure`, since there was no time
when the latter was valid.
[librustdoc] Only split lang string on `,`, ` `, and `\t`
Split markdown lang strings into tokens on `,`.
The previous behavior was to split lang strings into tokens on any
character that wasn't a `_`, `_`, or alphanumeric.
This is a potentially breaking change, so please scrutinize! See discussion in #78344.
I noticed some test cases that made me wonder if there might have been some reason for the original behavior:
```
t("{.no_run .example}", false, true, Ignore::None, true, false, false, false, v(), None);
t("{.sh .should_panic}", true, false, Ignore::None, false, false, false, false, v(), None);
t("{.example .rust}", false, false, Ignore::None, true, false, false, false, v(), None);
t("{.test_harness .rust}", false, false, Ignore::None, true, true, false, false, v(), None);
```
It seemed pretty peculiar to specifically test lang strings in braces, with all the tokens prefixed by `.`.
I did some digging, and it looks like the test cases were added way back in [this commit from 2014](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/commit/3fef7a74ca9a) by `@skade.`
It looks like they were added just to make sure that the splitting was permissive, and aren't testing that those strings in particular are accepted.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78344.
