Fix table in docblocks
"Overwrite" of #88702.
Instead of adding a z-index to the sidebar (which only hides the issue, doesn't fix it), I wrap `<table>` elements inside a `<div>` and limit all chidren of `.docblock` elements' width to prevent having the scrollbar on the whole doc block.
Thanks `@nbdd0121` for `overflow-x: auto;`. ;)
r? `@notriddle`
RustWrapper: avoid deleted unclear attribute methods
These were deleted in https://reviews.llvm.org/D108614, and in C++ I
definitely see the argument for their removal. I didn't try and
propagate the changes up into higher layers of rustc in this change
because my initial goal was to get rustc working against LLVM HEAD
promptly, but I'm happy to follow up with some refactoring to make the
API on the Rust side match the LLVM API more directly (though the way
the enum works in Rust makes the API less scary IMO).
r? ``@nagisa`` cc ``@nikic``
Rustdoc coverage fields count
Follow-up of #88688.
Instead of requiring enum tuple variant fields and tuple struct fields to be documented, we count them if they are documented, otherwise we don't include them in the count.
r? `@Manishearth`
Emit proper errors when on missing closure braces
This commit focuses on emitting clean errors for the following syntax
error:
```
Some(42).map(|a|
dbg!(a);
a
);
```
Previous implementation tried to recover after parsing the closure body
(the `dbg` expression) by replacing the next `;` with a `,`, which made
the next expression belong to the next function argument. As such, the
following errors were emitted (among others):
- the semicolon token was not expected,
- a is not in scope,
- Option::map is supposed to take one argument, not two.
This commit allows us to gracefully handle this situation by adding
giving the parser the ability to remember when it has just parsed a
closure body inside a function call. When this happens, we can treat the
unexpected `;` specifically and try to parse as much statements as
possible in order to eat the whole block. When we can't parse statements
anymore, we generate a clean error indicating that the braces are
missing, and return an ExprKind::Err.
Closes#88065.
r? `@estebank`
Fix stray notes when the source code is not available
Fixes#87060. To reproduce it with a local build of rustc, you have to copy the compiler (e.g. `build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/`) somewhere and then rename the compiler source directory (maybe there is a smarter way as well). Then, rustc won't find the standard library sources and report stray notes such as
```
note: deref defined here
```
with no location for "here". Another example I've found is this:
```rust
use std::ops::Add;
fn foo<T: Add<Output=()>>(x: T) {
x + x;
}
fn main() {}
```
```
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `x`
--> binop.rs:4:9
|
3 | fn foo<T: Add<Output=()>>(x: T) {
| - move occurs because `x` has type `T`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
4 | x + x;
| ----^
| | |
| | value used here after move
| `x` moved due to usage in operator
|
note: calling this operator moves the left-hand side
help: consider further restricting this bound
|
3 | fn foo<T: Add<Output=()> + Copy>(x: T) {
| ^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
```
where, again, the note is supposed to point somewhere but doesn't. I have fixed this by checking whether the corresponding source code is actually available before emitting the note.
Add proc_macro::Span::{before, after}.
This adds `proc_macro::Span::before()` and `proc_macro::Span::after()` to get a zero width span at the start or end of the span.
These are equivalent to rustc's `Span::shrink_to_lo()` and `Span::shrink_to_hi()` but with a less cryptic name. They are useful when generating diagnostlics like "missing \<thing\> after \<thing\>".
E.g.
```rust
syn::Error::new(ident.span().after(), "missing `:` after field name").into_compile_error()
```
Ignore derived Clone and Debug implementations during dead code analysis
This pull request fixes#84647. Derived implementations of `Clone` and `Debug` always trivially read all fields, so "field is never read" dead code warnings are never triggered. Arguably, though, a user most likely will only be interested in whether _their_ code ever reads those fields, which is the behavior I have implemented here.
Note that implementations of `Clone` and `Debug` are only ignored if they are `#[derive(...)]`d; a custom `impl Clone/Debug for ...` will still be analyzed normally (i.e. if a custom `Clone` implementation uses all fields of the struct, this will continue to suppress dead code warnings about unused fields); this seemed like the least intrusive change to me (although it would be easy to change — just drop the `&& [impl_]item.span.in_derive_expansion()` in the if conditions).
The only thing that I am slightly unsure about is that in #84647, `@matklad` said
> Doesn't seem easy to fix though :(
However, it _was_ pretty straightforward to fix, so did I perhaps overlook something obvious? `@matklad,` could you weigh in on this?
This commit focuses on emitting clean errors for the following syntax
error:
```
Some(42).map(|a|
dbg!(a);
a
);
```
Previous implementation tried to recover after parsing the closure body
(the `dbg` expression) by replacing the next `;` with a `,`, which made
the next expression belong to the next function argument. As such, the
following errors were emitted (among others):
- the semicolon token was not expected,
- a is not in scope,
- Option::map is supposed to take one argument, not two.
This commit allows us to gracefully handle this situation by adding
giving the parser the ability to remember when it has just parsed a
closure body inside a function call. When this happens, we can treat the
unexpected `;` specifically and try to parse as much statements as
possible in order to eat the whole block. When we can't parse statements
anymore, we generate a clean error indicating that the braces are
missing, and return an ExprKind::Err.
Split rustc_mir
The `rustc_mir` crate is the second largest in the compiler.
This PR splits it up into 5 crates:
- rustc_borrowck;
- rustc_const_eval;
- rustc_mir_dataflow;
- rustc_mir_transform;
- rustc_monomorphize.
Add a regression test for #88649
I noticed that #88649 does not have a regression test, so I add one in this PR.
The test fails with this without #88678:
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> /checkout/src/test/ui/consts/issue-88649.rs:13:52
|
LL | Foo::Variant1(x) | Foo::Variant2(x) if x => {}
| ^ StorageLive on a local that was already live
error: aborting due to previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0080`.
```
Correct “copies” to “moves” in `<Option<T> as From<T>>::from` doc, and other copyediting
The `impl<T> From<T> for Option<T>` has no `Copy` or `Clone` bound, so its operation is guaranteed to be a move. The call site might copy, but the function itself cannot.
Since that would have been a rather small PR, I also reviewed the other documentation in the file and made other improvements (in separate commits): adding periods and commas, linking `Deref::Target`, and clarifying what "a container" is in `FromIterator`.
More symbolic doc aliases
A bunch of small changes, mostly adding `#[doc(alias = "…")]` entries for symbolic `"…"`.
Also a small change in documentation of `const` keywords.
Improve diagnostics for unary plus operators (#88276)
This pull request improves the diagnostics emitted on parsing a unary plus operator. See #88276.
Before:
```
error: expected expression, found `+`
--> src/main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let x = +1;
| ^ expected expression
```
After:
```
error: leading `+` is not supported
--> main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let x = +1;
| ^
| |
| unexpected `+`
| help: try removing the `+`
```
`rustdoc`: compute correct line number for indented rust code blocks.
This PR fixes a bug in `rustdoc` where it computes the wrong line number for indented rust code blocks (and subsequent blocks) it finds in markdown strings. To fix this issue, we decrement the line number if we find characters between the code block and the preceding line ending. I noticed this issue as I was trying to use `rustdoc` to extract examples from The Rust Reference and run them through the [Rust Model Checker](https://github.com/model-checking/rmc).
