Detect struct construction with private field in field with default
When trying to construct a struct that has a public field of a private type, suggest using `..` if that field has a default value.
```
error[E0603]: struct `Priv1` is private
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor-2.rs:19:39
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), field1: m::Priv1 {} };
| ------ ^^^^^ private struct
| |
| while setting this field
|
note: the struct `Priv1` is defined here
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor-2.rs:14:4
|
LL | struct Priv1 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: the type `Priv1` of field `field1` is private, but you can construct the default value defined for it in `S` using `..` in the struct initializer expression
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), .. };
| ~~
```
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`
When trying to construct a struct that has a public field of a private type, suggest using `..` if that field has a default value.
```
error[E0603]: struct `Priv1` is private
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor.rs:25:39
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), field1: m::Priv1 {} };
| ------ ^^^^^ private struct
| |
| while setting this field
|
note: the struct `Priv1` is defined here
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor.rs:14:4
|
LL | struct Priv1 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: the field `field1` you're trying to set has a default value, you can use `..` to use it
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), .. };
| ~~
```
Rehome 33 `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`
Add a test showing `#![feature(default_field_values)]` using `#[const_trait] trait Default` (`#![feature(const_default)]` + `#![feature(const_trait_impl)]`).
Make error message for missing fields with `..` and without `..` more consistent
When `..` is not present, we say "missing field `bar` in initializer", but when it is present we say "missing mandatory field `bar`". I don't see why the primary error message should change, b/c the root cause is the same.
Let's harmonize these error messages and instead use a label to explain that `..` is required b/c it's not defaulted.
r? estebank
Try to point of macro expansion from resolver and method errors if it involves macro var
In the case that a macro caller passes an identifier into a macro generating a path or method expression, point out that identifier in the context of the *macro* so it's a bit more clear how the macro is involved in causing the error.
r? ``````````@estebank`````````` or reassign
Allow struct field default values to reference struct's generics
Right now, the default field value feature (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132162) lowers anon consts whose types may reference ADT params that the const doesn't inherit.
This PR fixes this, so that these defaults can reference ADTs' generics, and sets the `generics_of` parenting up correctly.
There doesn't seem to be a good reason not to support this, since the anon const has a well-defined type from the field, and the anon const doesn't interact with the type system like generic parameter defaults do.
r? `````@boxyuwu````` or reassign
I could also make this into an error if this seems problematic (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...compiler-errors:rust:default-field-value-implicit-param?expand=1)...... but I'd rather make this work and register an open question on the tracking issue about validating that this is well-vetted.
Fixes#137896
Previously, we included a redundant prefix on the panic message and a postfix of the location of the panic. The prefix didn't carry any additional information beyond "something failed", and the location of the panic is redundant with the diagnostic's span, which gets printed out even if its code is not shown.
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> $DIR/assert-type-intrinsics.rs:11:9
|
LL | MaybeUninit::<!>::uninit().assume_init();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: aborted execution: attempted to instantiate uninhabited type `!`
```
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of `Fail::<i32>::C` failed
--> $DIR/collect-in-dead-closure.rs:9:19
|
LL | const C: () = panic!();
| ^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: explicit panic
|
= note: this error originates in the macro
`$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro
`panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> $DIR/uninhabited.rs:41:9
|
LL | assert!(false);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: assertion failed: false
|
= note: this error originates in the macro `assert` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
---
When the primary span for a const error is the same as the first frame in the const error report, skip it.
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:3:24
|
LL | const _CONST: &[u8] = &f(&[], |_| {});
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: explicit panic
|
note: inside `f::<{closure@$DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:3:31: 3:34}>`
--> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:10:5
|
LL | panic!()
| ^^^^^^^^ the failure occurred here
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
instead of
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:10:5
|
LL | panic!()
| ^^^^^^^^ explicit panic
|
note: inside `f::<{closure@$DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:3:31: 3:34}>`
--> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:10:5
|
LL | panic!()
| ^^^^^^^^
note: inside `_CONST`
--> $DIR/issue-88434-removal-index-should-be-less.rs:3:24
|
LL | const _CONST: &[u8] = &f(&[], |_| {});
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
---
Revert order of constant evaluation errors
Point at the code the user wrote first and std functions last.
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> $DIR/const-errs-dont-conflict-103369.rs:5:25
|
LL | impl ConstGenericTrait<{my_fn(1)}> for () {}
| ^^^^^^^^ evaluation panicked: Some error occurred
|
note: called from `my_fn`
--> $DIR/const-errs-dont-conflict-103369.rs:10:5
|
LL | panic!("Some error occurred");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
instead of
```
error[E0080]: evaluation of constant value failed
--> $DIR/const-errs-dont-conflict-103369.rs:10:5
|
LL | panic!("Some error occurred");
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Some error occurred
|
note: called from `<() as ConstGenericTrait<{my_fn(1)}>>::{constant#0}`
--> $DIR/const-errs-dont-conflict-103369.rs:5:25
|
LL | impl ConstGenericTrait<{my_fn(1)}> for () {}
| ^^^^^^^^
= note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::panic::panic_2015` which comes from the expansion of the macro `panic` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
Do not ICE on default_field_value const with lifetimes
`#![feature(default_field_values)]` uses a `const` body that should be treated as inline `const`s, but is actually being detected otherwise. This is similar to the situation in #78174, so we take the same solution: we check if the const actually comes from a field, and if it does, we use that logic to get the appropriate lifetimes and not ICE during borrowck.
Fix#135649.
```
error[E0610]: `{integer}` is a primitive type and therefore doesn't have fields
--> $DIR/attempted-access-non-fatal.rs:7:15
|
LL | let _ = 2.l;
| ^
|
help: if intended to be a floating point literal, consider adding a `0` after the period and a `f64` suffix
|
LL - let _ = 2.l;
LL + let _ = 2.0f64;
|
```
- `check-pass` test for a MRE of #135020
- fail test for #135138
- switch to `TooGeneric` for checking CMSE fn signatures
- switch to `TooGeneric` for compute `SizeSkeleton` (for transmute)
- fix broken tests
When a struct definition has default field values, and the use struct ctor has missing field, if all those missing fields have defaults suggest `..`:
```
error[E0063]: missing fields `field1` and `field2` in initializer of `S`
--> $DIR/non-exhaustive-ctor.rs:16:13
|
LL | let _ = S { field: () };
| ^ missing `field1` and `field2`
|
help: all remaining fields have defaults, use `..`
|
LL | let _ = S { field: (), .. };
| ++++
```
Emit single privacy error for struct literal with multiple private fields and add test for `default_field_values` privacy
Add test ensuring that struct with default field values is not constructable if the fields are not accessible.
Collect all unreachable fields in a single struct literal struct and emit a single error, instead of one error per private field.
```
error[E0451]: fields `beta` and `gamma` of struct `Alpha` are private
--> $DIR/visibility.rs:18:13
|
LL | let _x = Alpha {
| ----- in this type
LL | beta: 0,
| ^^^^^^^ private field
LL | ..
| ^^ field `gamma` is private
```
```
error: `A` has no fields, `..` needs at least one default field in the struct definition
--> $DIR/empty-struct.rs:16:17
|
LL | let _ = A { .. };
| - ^^
| |
| this type has no fields
```
Collect all unreachable fields in a single struct literal struct and emit a single error, instead of one error per private field.
```
error[E0451]: fields `beta` and `gamma` of struct `Alpha` are private
--> $DIR/visibility.rs:18:13
|
LL | let _x = Alpha {
| ----- in this type
LL | beta: 0,
| ^^^^^^^ private field
LL | ..
| ^^ field `gamma` is private
```
```
error[E0451]: field `x` of struct `S` is private
--> $DIR/visibility.rs:24:9
|
LL | let a = baz::S {
| ------ in this type
LL | ..
| ^^ field `x` is private
```
```
error[E0451]: field `beta` of struct `Alpha` is private
--> $DIR/visibility.rs:11:37
|
LL | let x = crate::foo::Alpha { .. };
| ^^ field `beta` is private
```
