Update the minimum external LLVM to 14
With this change, we'll have stable support for LLVM 14 through 16 (pending release).
For reference, the previous increase to LLVM 13 was #100460.
Remove needless supertrait constraints from Interner projections
These associated types are already all constrained to implement `Ord`, so specifically requiring its supertraits `Eq`, `PartialEq` and `PartialOrd` is superfluous.
Suggest fix for misplaced generic params on fn item #103366fixes#103366
This still has some work to go, but works for 2/3 of the initial base cases described in #1033366
simple fn:
```
error: expected identifier, found `<`
--> shreys/test_1.rs:1:3
|
1 | fn<T> id(x: T) -> T { x }
| ^ expected identifier
|
help: help: place the generic parameter list after the function name:
|
1 | fn id<T>(x: T) -> T { x }
| ~~~~
```
Complicated bounds
```
error: expected identifier, found `<`
--> spanishpear/test_2.rs:1:3
|
1 | fn<'a, B: 'a + std::ops::Add<Output = u32>> f(_x: B) { }
| ^ expected identifier
|
help: help: place the generic parameter list after the function name:
|
1 | fn f<'a, B: 'a + std::ops::Add<Output = u32>>(_x: B) { }
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
```
Opening a draft PR for comments on approach, particularly I have the following questions:
- [x] Is it okay to be using `err.span_suggestion` over struct derives? I struggled to get the initial implementation (particularly the correct suggestion message) on struct derives, although I think given what I've learned since starting, I could attempt re-doing it with that approach.
- [x] in the case where the snippet cannot be obtained from a span, is the `help` but no suggestion okay? I think yes (also, when does this case occur?)
- [x] are there any red flags for the generalisation of this work for relevant item kinds (i.e. `struct`, `enum`, `trait`, and `union`). My basic testing indicates it does work for those types except the help tip is currently hardcoded to `after the function name` - which should change dependent on the item.
- [x] I am planning to not show the suggestion if there is already a `<` after the item identifier, (i.e. if there are already generics, as after a function name per the original issue). Any major objections?
- [x] Is the style of error okay? I wasn't sure if there was a way to make it display nicer, or if thats handled by span_suggestion
These aren't blocking questions, and I will keep working on:
- check if there is a `<` after the ident (and if so, not showing the suggestion)
- generalize the help message
- figuring out how to write/run/etc ui tests (including reading the docs for them)
- logic cleanups
Note that at the time of this commit, `unic-emoji-char` seems to have
data tables only up to Unicode 5.0, but Unicode is already newer than
this.
A newer emoji such as `🥺` will not be recognized as an emoji
but older emojis such as `🐱` will.
fix: improve the suggestion on future not awaited
Considering the following code
```rust
fn foo() -> u8 {
async fn async_fn() -> u8 { 22 }
async_fn()
}
fn main() {}
```
the error generated before this commit from the compiler is
```
➜ rust git:(macros/async_fn_suggestion) ✗ rustc test.rs --edition 2021
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found opaque type
|
= note: expected type `u8`
found opaque type `impl Future<Output = u8>`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
In this case the error is nor perfect, and can confuse the user that do not know that the opaque type is the future.
So this commit will propose (and conclude the work start in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80658)
to change the string `opaque type` to `future` when applicable and also remove the Expected vs Received note by adding a more specific one regarding the async function that return a future type.
So the new error emitted by the compiler is
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found future
|
note: calling an async function returns a future
--> test.rs:4:5
|
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80658
It remains to rework the case described in the following issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107899 but I think this deserves its own PR after we discuss a little bit how to handle these kinds of cases.
r? `@eholk`
`@rustbot` label +I-async-nominated
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
Move folding & visiting traits into type library
This is a rework of #107712, following feedback on that PR.
In particular, this version uses trait aliases to reduce the API churn for trait consumers. Doing so requires a workaround for #107747 until its fix in #107803 is merged into the stage0 compiler; this workaround, which uses conditional compilation based on the `bootstrap` configuration predicate, sits in dedicated commit b409329c for ease of reversion.
The possibility of the `rustc_middle` crate retaining its own distinct versions of each folding/visiting trait, blanket-implemented on all types that implement the respective trait in the type library, was also explored: however since this would necessitate making each `rustc_middle` trait a subtrait of the respective type library trait (so that such blanket implementations can delegate their generic methods), no benefit would be gained.
r? types
Considering the following code
```rust
fn foo() -> u8 {
async fn async_fn() -> u8 { 22 }
async_fn()
}
fn main() {}
```
the error generated before this commit from the compiler is
```
➜ rust git:(macros/async_fn_suggestion) ✗ rustc test.rs --edition 2021
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found opaque type
|
= note: expected type `u8`
found opaque type `impl Future<Output = u8>`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
In this case the error is nor perfect, and can confuse the user
that do not know that the opaque type is the future.
So this commit will propose (and conclude the work start in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80658)
to change the string `opaque type` to `future` when applicable
and also remove the Expected vs Received note by adding a more
specific one regarding the async function that return a future type.
So the new error emitted by the compiler is
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found future
|
note: calling an async function returns a future
--> test.rs:4:5
|
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
