When encountering an unmet trait bound, point at local type that doesn't implement the trait:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `Bar<T>: Foo` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/issue-64855.rs:9:19
|
LL | pub struct Bar<T>(<Self as Foo>::Type) where Self: ;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unsatisfied trait bound
|
help: the trait `Foo` is not implemented for `Bar<T>`
--> $DIR/issue-64855.rs:9:1
|
LL | pub struct Bar<T>(<Self as Foo>::Type) where Self: ;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Include whitespace in "remove |" suggestion and make it hidden
Tweak error rendering of patterns with an extra `|` on either end.
Built on #137409. Only last commit is relevant.
? ``@compiler-errors``
defer opaque type errors, generally greatly reduce tainting
fixes the test for rust-lang/rust#135528, does not actually fix that issue properly.
This is useful as it causes the migration to rust-lang/rust#139587 to be a lot easier.
Use `splice` to avoid shifting the other items twice.
Put `extern crate std;` first so it's already resolved when we resolve `::std::prelude::rust_20XX`.
Stop compilation early if macro expansion failed
Fixesrust-lang/rust#116180.
So there isn't really a type that is central for macro expansion and some errors are actually emitted (because the resolution happens after the expansion I suppose) after the expansion pass (like "not found macro"). Sometimes, errors are only emitted on the second "try" (to improve error output). So I couldn't reach a similar solution than what was done in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133937 and suggested by ````@estebank```` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116180#issuecomment-3109468922. But maybe I missed something?
So in the end, I realized that there is method called every time (except one, described below) a macro error is actually emitted: `ExtCtxt::trace_macros_diag`. Considering I updated what it did, I renamed it into `macro_error_and_trace_macros_diag` to better reflect it.
There is only one call of `trace_macros_diag` which isn't reporting an error but just used for `macro_trace` feature, so I kept it as is.
r? ````@oli-obk````
Remove let_chains unstable feature
Per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53667#issuecomment-3016742982 (but then I also noticed rust-lang/rust#140722)
This replaces the feature gate with a parser error that says let chains require 2024.
A lot of tests were using the unstable feature. I either added edition:2024 to the test or split out the parts that require 2024.
Add a new `mismatched-lifetime-syntaxes` lint
The lang-team [discussed this](https://hackmd.io/nf4ZUYd7Rp6rq-1svJZSaQ) and I attempted to [summarize](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120808#issuecomment-2701863833) their decision. The summary-of-the-summary is:
- Using two different kinds of syntax for elided lifetimes is confusing. In rare cases, it may even [lead to unsound code](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48686)! Some examples:
```rust
// Lint will warn about these
fn(v: ContainsLifetime) -> ContainsLifetime<'_>;
fn(&'static u8) -> &u8;
```
- Matching up references with no lifetime syntax, references with anonymous lifetime syntax, and paths with anonymous lifetime syntax is an exception to the simplest possible rule:
```rust
// Lint will not warn about these
fn(&u8) -> &'_ u8;
fn(&'_ u8) -> &u8;
fn(&u8) -> ContainsLifetime<'_>;
```
- Having a lint for consistent syntax of elided lifetimes will make the [future goal](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91639) of warning-by-default for paths participating in elision much simpler.
---
This new lint attempts to accomplish the goal of enforcing consistent syntax. In the process, it supersedes and replaces the existing `elided-named-lifetimes` lint, which means it starts out life as warn-by-default.
Remove global `next_disambiguator` state and handle it with a `DisambiguatorState` type
This removes `Definitions.next_disambiguator` as it doesn't guarantee deterministic def paths when `create_def` is called in parallel. Instead a new `DisambiguatorState` type is passed as a mutable reference to `create_def` to help create unique def paths. `create_def` calls with distinct `DisambiguatorState` instances must ensure that that the def paths are unique without its help.
Anon associated types did rely on this global state for uniqueness and are changed to use (method they're defined in + their position in the method return type) as the `DefPathData` to ensure uniqueness. This also means that the method they're defined in appears in error messages, which is nicer.
`DefPathData::NestedStatic` is added to use for nested data inside statics instead of reusing `DefPathData::AnonConst` to avoid conflicts with those.
cc `@oli-obk`
The edition gate is a bit stricter than the drop behaviour,
which is fine. The cases we want to avoid are the opposite:
not gated but 2021 drop behaviour.
Explicitly annotate edition for `unpretty=expanded` and `unpretty=hir` tests
These emit prelude imports which means they are always edition dependent and so running them with a different `--edition` will fail.
Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals`
Closes#131204
`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated
This will end up conflicting with the test in #138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating
--
# Stabilization Report
## General design
### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
[RFC 3695](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695), none.
### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
None
### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
None
## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
Yes; only positive feedback was received.
## Implementation quality
### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
Implemented in [#131034](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131034).
### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
- [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs)
- [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs)
- [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs)
- [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs)
- Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs`
- Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs`
### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature.
### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None
### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
- `@clubby789` (RFC)
- `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc)
### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
`rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized.
## Type system and execution rules
### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
