Fix pairs of doubles using an illegal <8 x i8> vector.
Accidentally introduced in #40658 and discovered in some Objective-C bindings (returning `NSPoint`).
Turns out LLVM will widen element types of illegal vectors instead of increasing element count, i.e. it will zero-extend `<8 x i8>` to `<8 x i16>`, interleaving the bytes, instead of using the first 8 of `<16 x i8>`.
Highlight and simplify mismatched types
Shorten mismatched types errors by replacing subtypes that are not
different with `_`, and highlighting only the subtypes that are
different.
Given a file
```rust
struct X<T1, T2> {
x: T1,
y: T2,
}
fn foo() -> X<X<String, String>, String> {
X { x: X {x: "".to_string(), y: 2}, y: "".to_string()}
}
fn bar() -> Option<String> {
"".to_string()
}
```
provide the following output
```rust
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> file.rs:6:5
|
6 | X { x: X {x: "".to_string(), y: 2}, y: "".to_string()}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected struct `std::string::String`, found {integer}
|
= note: expected type `X<X<_, std::string::String>, _>`
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ // < highlighted
found type `X<X<_, {integer}>, _>`
^^^^^^^^^ // < highlighted
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> file.rs:6:5
|
10 | "".to_string()
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected struct `std::option::Option`, found `std::string::String`
|
= note: expected type `Option<std::string::String>`
^^^^^^^ ^ // < highlighted
found type `std::string::String`
```
Fix#21025. Re: #40186. Follow up to #39906.
I'm looking to change how this output is accomplished so that it doesn't create list of strings to pass around, but rather add an elided `Ty` placeholder, and use the same string formatting for normal types. I'll be doing that soonish.
r? @nikomatsakis
ICH: Replace old, transitive metadata hashing with direct hashing approach.
This PR replaces the old crate metadata hashing strategy with a new one that directly (but stably) hashes all values we encode into the metadata. Previously we would track what data got accessed during metadata encoding and then hash the input nodes (HIR and upstream metadata) that were transitively reachable from the accessed data. While this strategy was sound, it had two major downsides:
1. It was susceptible to generating false positives, i.e. some input node might have changed without actually affecting the content of the metadata. That metadata entry would still show up as changed.
2. It was susceptible to quadratic blow-up when many metadata nodes shared the same input nodes, which would then get hashed over and over again.
The new method does not have these disadvantages and it's also a first step towards caching more intermediate results in the compiler.
Metadata hashing/cross-crate incremental compilation is still kept behind the `-Zincremental-cc` flag even after this PR. Once the new method has proven itself with more tests, we can remove the flag and enable cross-crate support by default again.
r? @nikomatsakis
cc @rust-lang/compiler
Use proper span for tuple index parsed as float
Fix diagnostic suggestion from:
```rust
help: try parenthesizing the first index
| (1, (2, 3)).((1, (2, 3)).1).1;
```
to the correct:
```rust
help: try parenthesizing the first index
| ((1, (2, 3)).1).1;
```
Fix#41081.
remove unnecessary tasks
Remove various unnecessary tasks. All of these are "always execute" tasks that don't do any writes to tracked state (or else an assert would trigger, anyhow). In some cases, they issue lints or errors, but we''ll deal with that -- and anyway side-effects outside of a task don't cause problems for anything that I can see.
The one non-trivial refactoring here is the borrowck conversion, which adds the requirement to go from a `DefId` to a `BodyId`. I tried to make a useful helper here.
r? @eddyb
cc #40746
cc @cramertj @michaelwoerister
Instead of collecting all potential inputs to some metadata entry and
hashing those, we directly hash the values we are storing in metadata.
This is more accurate and doesn't suffer from quadratic blow-up when
many entries have the same dependencies.
Add contribution instructions to stdlib docs
Generally programming language docs have instructions on how to contribute changes.
I couldn't find any in the rust docs, so I figured I'd add an instructions section, let me know if this belongs somewhere else!
Add the RLS as a submodule and build a package out of it
r? @brson (and cc @alexcrichton) Please review closely, I am not at all convinced I've done the right things here. I did run `x.py dist` and it makes an rls package which looks right to my eyes, but I haven't tested on non-linux platforms nor am I really sure what it should look like.
This does not attempt to run tests for the RLS yet.
Make sccache a bit quieter
...and remove the single mention of `SCCACHE_LOG_LEVEL` that would only take effect on Docker (i.e. Linux) builds since it had no effect anyway (because [`RUST_LOG` takes priority](ec10cdb2dd/src/main.rs (L124-L128))).
r? @frewsxcv
Implement optimization fuel and re-enable struct field reordering
See [this discussion](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rolling-out-or-unrolling-struct-field-reorderings/4485) for background.
This pull request adds two new compilation options: `-Z print-fuel=crate` prints the optimization fuel used by a crate and `-Z fuel=crate=n` sets the optimization fuel for a crate.
It also turns field reordering back on. There is no way to test this feature without something consuming fuel. We can roll this back if we want, but then the optimization fuel bits will be dead code.
The one notable absence from this PR is a test case. I'm not sure how to do one that's worth having. The only thing I can think of to test is `-Z fuel=foo=0`. The problem with other tests is that either (1) they're so big that future optimizations will apply, thus breaking them or (2) we don't know which order the optimizations will be applied in, so we can't guess the message that will be printed. If someone has a useful proposal for a good test, I certainly want to add one.
* Use the right version when building combined installer
* Update dependencies of rls as it depends on rustc and plugins
* Fix build-manifest and the versions it uses for the rls
Reduce str transmutes, add mut versions of methods.
When I was working on the various parts involved in #40380 one of the comments I got was the excess of transmutes necessary to make the changes work. This is part of a set of multiple changes I'd like to offer to fix this problem.
I think that having these methods is reasonable because they're already possible via transmutes, and it makes the code that uses them safer. I can also add `pub(crate)` to these methods for now if the libs team would rather not expose them to the public without an RFC.
Fix jemalloc support for musl
Just like DragonFlyBSD, using the same symbols as the system allocator will result in a segmentation fault at runtime due to allocator mismatches. As such, it's better to prefix the jemalloc symbols instead, avoiding crashes.
We encountered this problem on a dynamically-linked musl target (with patches to Rust to make that possible, see #40113). It may not show up immediately obviously on the current statically-linked CRT targets.
Point at only one char on `Span::next_point`
Avoid pointing at two chars so the diagnostic output doesn't display a
multiline span when starting beyond a line end.
Fix#41155.
Instead of
```rust
error: expected one of `(`, `const`, `default`, `extern`, `fn`, `type`, or `unsafe`, found `}`
--> <anon>:3:1
|
1 | impl S { pub
| _____________- starting here...
2 | |
| | ...ending here: expected one of 7 possible tokens here
3 | }
| ^ unexpected token
```
show
```rust
error: expected one of `(`, `const`, `default`, `extern`, `fn`, `type`, or `unsafe`, found `}`
--> <anon>:13:1
|
12 | pub
| - expected one of 7 possible tokens here
13 | }
| ^ unexpected token
```
Explicit help message for binop type mismatch
When trying to do `1 + Some(2)`, or some other binary operation on two
types different types without an appropriate trait implementation, provide
an explicit help message:
```rust
help: `{integer} + std::option::Option<{integer}>` has no implementation
```
Re: #39579, #38564, #37626, #39942, #34698.
When trying to do a binary operation with missing implementation, for
example `1 + Some(2)`, provide an explicit help message:
```
note: no implementation for `{integer} + std::option::Option<{integer}>`
```
Use `rustc_on_unimplemented` for the suggestions. Move cfail test to ui.
