Rehome 32 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/`
rust-lang/rust#143902 divided into smaller, easier to review chunks.
Part of rust-lang/rust#133895
Methodology:
1. Refer to the previously written `tests/ui/SUMMARY.md`
2. Find an appropriate category for the test, using the original issue thread and the test contents.
3. Add the issue URL at the bottom (not at the top, as that would mess up stderr line numbers)
4. Rename the tests to make their purpose clearer
Inspired by the methodology that `@Kivooeo` was using.
r? `@jieyouxu`
`tests/ui/issues/`: The Issues Strike Back [4/N]
Some `tests/ui/issues/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/issues/`. Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133895.
r? ````````@jieyouxu````````
In rustc_pattern_analysis, put `true` witnesses before `false` witnesses
In rustc it doesn't really matter what the order of the witnesses is, but I'm planning to use the witnesses for implementing the "add missing match arms" assist in rust-analyzer, and there `true` before `false` is the natural order (like `Some` before `None`), and also what the current assist does.
The current order doesn't seem to be intentional; the code was created when bool ctors became their own thing, not just int ctors, but for integer, 0 before 1 is indeed the natural order.
r? `@Nadrieril`
`tests/ui/issues/`: The Issues Strike Back [3/N]
Some `tests/ui/issues/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/issues/`. Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133895.
r? ```@jieyouxu```
Rehome 21 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/`
rust-lang/rust#143902 divided into smaller, easier to review chunks.
Part of rust-lang/rust#133895
Methodology:
1. Refer to the previously written `tests/ui/SUMMARY.md`
2. Find an appropriate category for the test, using the original issue thread and the test contents.
3. Add the issue URL at the bottom (not at the top, as that would mess up stderr line numbers)
4. Rename the tests to make their purpose clearer
Inspired by the methodology that ``@Kivooeo`` was using.
r? ``@jieyouxu``
`tests/ui/issues/`: The Issues Strike Back [1/N]
I believe I’ve finally brought [my program](https://github.com/Kivooeo/test-manager) to life -- it now handles multiple test moves in one go: plain moves first, then a gentle touch on each file depends on given options. The process should be much smoother now.
Of course, I won’t rush through everything in a few days -- that would be unkind to `@Oneirical.` I’ll pace myself. And also I can't have more than one such PR because `issues.txt` will conflict with previous parts after merging them which is not fun as well.
This PR is just that: first commit - moves; second - regression comments and the occasional .stderr reblesses, also issue.txt and tidy changes. Nothing special, but progress nonetheless. This is for the purpose of preserving test file history during restructuring
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133895.
r? `@jieyouxu`
In rustc it doesn't really matter what the order of the witnesses is, but I'm planning to use the witnesses for implementing the "add missing match arms" assist in rust-analyzer, and there `true` before `false` is the natural order (like `Some` before `None`), and also what the current assist does.
The current order doesn't seem to be intentional; the code was created when bool ctors became their own thing, not just int ctors, but for integer, 0 before 1 is indeed the natural order.
When encountering a moved value of a type that isn't `Clone` because of unmet obligations, but where all the unmet predicates reference crate-local types, mention them and suggest cloning, as we do in other cases already:
```
error[E0507]: cannot move out of `foo`, a captured variable in an `Fn` closure
--> f111.rs:14:25
|
13 | fn do_stuff(foo: Option<Foo>) {
| --- captured outer variable
14 | require_fn_trait(|| async {
| -- ^^^^^ `foo` is moved here
| |
| captured by this `Fn` closure
15 | if foo.map_or(false, |f| f.foo()) {
| ---
| |
| variable moved due to use in coroutine
| move occurs because `foo` has type `Option<Foo>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
|
note: if `Foo` implemented `Clone`, you could clone the value
--> f111.rs:4:1
|
4 | struct Foo;
| ^^^^^^^^^^ consider implementing `Clone` for this type
...
15 | if foo.map_or(false, |f| f.foo()) {
| --- you could clone this value
```
Check assoc consts and tys later like assoc fns
This PR
1. checks assoc consts and tys later like assoc fns
2. marks assoc consts appear in poly-trait-ref live
For assoc consts, considering
```rust
#![deny(dead_code)]
trait Tr { // ERROR trait `Tr` is never used
const I: Self;
}
struct Foo; //~ ERROR struct `Foo` is never constructed
impl Tr for Foo {
const I: Self = Foo;
}
fn main() {}
```
Current this will produce unused `I` instead of unused `Tr` and `Foo` ([play](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2024&gist=e0490d4a2d522cb70437b26e514a3d9c)), because `const I: Self = Foo;` will be added into the worklist at first:
```
error: associated constant `I` is never used
--> src/main.rs:4:11
|
3 | trait Tr { // ERROR trait `Tr` is never used
| -- associated constant in this trait
4 | const I: Self;
| ^
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> src/main.rs:1:9
|
1 | #![deny(dead_code)]
| ^^^^^^^^^
error: could not compile `playground` (bin "playground") due to 1 previous error
```
This also happens to assoc tys, see the [new test](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...mu001999-contrib:rust:dead-code/impl-items?expand=1#diff-bf45fa403934a31c9d610a073ed2603d885e7e81572e8edf38b7f4e08a1f3531)
Fixesrust-lang/rust#126729
r? `````@petrochenkov`````
`rustc_pattern_analysis`: always check that deref patterns don't match on the same place as normal constructors
In rust-lang/rust#140106, deref pattern validation was tied to the `deref_patterns` feature to temporarily avoid affecting perf. However:
- As of rust-lang/rust#143414, box patterns are represented as deref patterns in `rustc_pattern_analysis`. Since they can be used by enabling `box_patterns` instead of `deref_patterns`, it was possible for them to skip validation, resulting in an ICE. This fixes that and adds a regression test.
- External tooling (e.g. rust-analyzer) will also need to validate matches containing deref patterns, which was not possible. This fixes that by making `compute_match_usefulness` validate deref patterns by default.
In order to avoid doing an extra pass for anything with patterns, the second commit makes `RustcPatCtxt` keep track of whether it encounters a deref pattern, so that it only does the check if so. This is purely for performance. If the perf impact of the first commit is negligible and the complexity cost introduced by the second commit is significant, it may be worth dropping the latter.
r? `@Nadrieril`
`tests/ui`: A New Order [24/N]
> [!NOTE]
>
> Intermediate commits are intended to help review, but will be squashed prior to merge.
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? `@tgross35`
Use non-2015 edition paths in tests that do not test for their resolution
This allows for testing these tests on editions other than 2015
Follow up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/141888
Defer evaluating type system constants when they use infers or params
Split out of #137972, the parts necessary for associated const equality and min generic const args to make progress and have correct semantics around when CTFE is invoked. According to a [previous perf run](https://perf.rust-lang.org/compare.html?start=93257e2d20809d82d1bc0fcc1942480d1a66d7cd&end=01b4cbf0f47c3f782330db88fa5ba199bba1f8a2&stat=instructions:u) of adding the new `const_arg_kind` query we should expect minor regressions here.
I think this is acceptable as we should be able to remove this query relatively soon once mgca is more complete as we'll then be able to implement GCE in terms of mgca and rip out `GCEConst` at which point it's trivial to determine what kind of anon const we're dealing with (either it has generics and is a repeat expr hack, or it doesnt and is a normal anon const).
This should only affect unstable code as we handle repeat exprs specially and those are the only kinds of type system consts that are allowed to make use of generic parameters.
Fixes#133066Fixes#133199Fixes#136894Fixes#137813
r? compiler-errors
only resolve top-level guard patterns' guards once
We resolve guard patterns' guards in `resolve_pattern_inner`, so to avoid resolving them multiple times, we must avoid doing so earlier. To accomplish this, `LateResolutionVisitor::visit_pat` contains a case for guard patterns that avoids visiting their guards while walking patterns.
This PR fixes#141265, which was due to `visit::walk_pat` being used instead; this meant guards at the top level of a pattern would be visited twice. e.g. it would ICE on `for x if x in [] {}`, but not `for (x if x) in [] {}`. `visit_pat` was already used for the guard pattern in the second example, on account of the top-level pattern being parens.
When checking a pattern with guards in it, `GatherLocalsVisitor` will
visit both the pattern (when type-checking the let, arm, or param
containing it) and the guard expression (when checking the guard
itself). This keeps it from visiting the guard when visiting the
pattern, since otherwise it would gather locals from the guard twice,
which would lead to a delayed bug: "evaluated expression more than
once".
We resolve guard patterns' guards in `resolve_pattern_inner`, so to
avoid resolving them multiple times, we must avoid doing so earlier. To
accomplish this, `LateResolutionVisitor::visit_pat` contains a case for
guard patterns that avoids visiting their guards while walking patterns.
This fixes an ICE due to `visit::walk_pat` being used instead, which
meant guards at the top level of a pattern would be visited twice.
name resolution for guard patterns
This PR provides an initial implementation of name resolution for guard patterns [(RFC 3637)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3637-guard-patterns.md). This does not change the requirement that the bindings on either side of an or-pattern must be the same [(proposal here)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3637-guard-patterns.md#allowing-mismatching-bindings-when-possible); the code that handles that is separate from what this PR touches, so I'm saving it for a follow-up.
On a technical level, this separates "collecting the bindings in a pattern" (which was already done for or-patterns) from "introducing those bindings into scope". I believe the approach used here can be extended straightforwardly in the future to work with `if let` guard patterns, but I haven't tried it myself since we don't allow those yet.
Tracking issue for guard patterns: #129967
cc ``@Nadrieril``
Without adding proper support for mixed exhaustiveness, mixing deref
patterns with normal constructors would either violate
`ConstructorSet::split`'s invariant 4 or 7. We'd either be ignoring rows
with normal constructors or we'd have problems in unspecialization from
non-disjoint constructors. Checking mixed exhaustivenss similarly to how
unions are currently checked should work, but the diagnostics for unions
are confusing. Since mixing deref patterns with normal constructors is
pretty niche (currently it only makes sense for `Cow`), emitting an
error lets us avoid committing to supporting mixed exhaustiveness
without a good answer for the diagnostics.
This does not yet handle the case of mixed deref patterns with normal
constructors; it'll ICE in `Constructor::is_covered_by`. That'll be
fixed in a later commit.
compiletest: Do not require annotations on empty labels and suggestions
Unlike other empty diagnostics, empty labels (only underlining spans) and empty suggestions (suggestions to remove something) are quite usual and do not require any special attention and annotations.
This effectively reverts a part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139485.
r? `@jieyouxu`
This allows deref patterns to move out of boxes.
Implementation-wise, I've opted to put the information of whether a
deref pattern uses a built-in deref or a method call in the THIR. It'd
be a bit less code to check `.is_box()` everywhere, but I think this way
feels more robust (and we don't have a `mutability` field in the THIR
that we ignore when the smart pointer's a box). I'm not sure about the
naming (or using `ByRef`), though.
