RFC 2008: Future-proofing enums/structs with #[non_exhaustive] attribute
This work-in-progress pull request contains my changes to implement [RFC 2008](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2008). The related tracking issue is #44109.
As of writing, enum-related functionality is not included and there are some issues related to tuple/unit structs. Enum related tests are currently ignored.
WIP PR requested by @nikomatsakis [in Gitter](https://gitter.im/rust-impl-period/WG-compiler-middle?at=59e90e6297cedeb0482ade3e).
Add derive and doc comment capabilities to newtype_index macro
This moves `RustcDecodable` and `RustcEncodable` out of the macro definition and into the macro uses. They were conflicting with `CrateNum`'s impls of `serialize::UseSpecializedEncodable` and `serialize::UseSpecializedDecodable`, and now it's not :). `CrateNum` is now defined with the `newtype_index` macro. I also added support for doc comments on constant definitions and allowed a type to remove the pub specification on the tuple param (otherwise a LOT of code would refuse to compile for `CrateNum`). I was getting dozens of errors like this if `CrateNum` was defined as `pub struct CrateNum(pub u32)`:
```
error[E0530]: match bindings cannot shadow tuple structs
--> src/librustc/dep_graph/dep_node.rs:624:25
|
63 | use hir::def_id::{CrateNum, DefId, DefIndex, CRATE_DEF_INDEX};
| -------- a tuple struct `CrateNum` is imported here
...
624 | [] MissingLangItems(CrateNum),
| ^^^^^^^^ cannot be named the same as a tuple struct
```
I also cleaned up the formatting of the macro bodies as they were getting impossibly long. Should I go back and fix the matching rules to this style too?
I also want to see what the test results look like because `CrateNum` used to just derive `Debug`, but the `newtype_index` macro has a custom implementation. This might require further pushes.
Feel free to bikeshed on the macro language, I have no preference here.
Fix libstd compile error for windows-gnu targets without `backtrace`
This is basically an addition to #44979. Compiling `libstd` still fails when targeting `windows-gnu` with `panic = "abort"` because the items in the `...c::gnu` module are not used. They are only referenced from `backtrace_gnu.rs`, which is indirectly feature gated behind `backtrace` [here](9f3b09116b/src/libstd/sys/windows/mod.rs (L23)).
Add a nicer error message for missing in for loop, fixes#40782.
As suggested by @estebank in issue #40782, this works in the same way as #42578: if the in keyword is missing, we continue parsing the expression and if this works correctly an adapted error message is produced. Otherwise we return the old error.
A specific test case has also been added.
This is my first PR on rust-lang/rust so any feedback is very welcome.
add TerminatorKind::FalseEdges and use it in matches
impl #45184 and fixes#45043 right way.
False edges unexpectedly affects uninitialized variables analysis in MIR borrowck.
[Syntax] Implement auto trait syntax
Implements `auto trait Send {}` as a substitute for `trait Send {} impl Send for .. {}`.
See the [internals thread](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-renaming-oibits-and-changing-their-declaration-syntax/3086) for motivation. Part of #13231.
The first commit is just a rename moving from "default trait" to "auto trait". The rest is parser->AST->HIR work and making it the same as the current syntax for everything below HIR. It's under the `optin_builtin_traits` feature gate.
When can we remove the old syntax? Do we need to wait for a new `stage0`? We also need to formally decide for the new form (even if the keyword is not settled yet).
Observations:
- If you `auto trait Auto {}` and then `impl Auto for .. {}` that's accepted even if it's redundant.
- The new syntax is simpler internally which will allow for a net removal of code, for example well-formedness checks are effectively moved to the parser.
- Rustfmt and clippy are broken, need to fix those.
- Rustdoc just ignores it for now.
ping @petrochenkov @nikomatsakis
DefaultImpl is a highly confusing name for what we now call auto impls,
as in `impl Send for ..`. The name auto impl is not formally decided
but for sanity anything is better than `DefaultImpl` which refers
neither to `default impl` nor to `impl Default`.
`unreachable-pub` lint (as authorized by RFC 2126)
To whom it may concern:
RFC 2126 commissions the creation of a lint for `pub` items that are not visible from crate root (#45521). We understand (but seek confirmation from more knowledgable compiler elders) that this can be implemented by linting HIR items that are _not_ ~~`cx.access_levels.is_exported`~~ `cx.access_levels.is_reachable` but have a `vis` (-ibility) field of `hir::Visibility::Public`.
The lint, tentatively called ~~`unexported-pub`~~ `unreachable-pub` (with the understanding that much could be written on the merits of various names, as it is said of the colors of bicycle-sheds), suggests `crate` as a replacement for `pub` if the `crate_visibility_modifier` feature is enabled (see #45388), and `pub(crate)` otherwise. We also use help messaging to suggest the other potential fix of exporting the item; feedback is desired as to whether this may be confusing or could be worded better.
As a preview of what respecting the proposed lint would look like (and to generate confirmatory evidence that this implementation doesn't issue false positives), ~~we take its suggestions for `libcore`~~ (save one, which is deferred to another pull request because it brings up an unrelated technical matter). I remain your obedient servant.
r? @petrochenkov
ci: Fix broken link in `build-powerpc64le-toolchain.sh`
r? @rust-lang/infra
This is just an emergency fix to keep bors running for another week. I think the numbers will be broken soon. Can we verify if this statement is still true later?
> First, download the CentOS7 glibc.ppc64le and relevant header files.
> (upstream ppc64le support wasn't added until 2.19, which el7 backported.)
typeck: suggest use of match_default_bindings feature
Fixes#45383.
Updates #42640.
r? @nikomatsakis
cc @tschottdorf
This needs a UI test, but thought I'd get some early feedback.
