subtree-push nightly-2026-06-10#20
Open
github-actions[bot] wants to merge 31 commits into
Open
Conversation
…zelmann Remove the translation `-Z` options and the `Translator` type. This PR implements MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#967 It is split up into individually reviewable commits, each commit passes tests: * rust-lang/rust@6782119 Removes the translation compiler options from the session * rust-lang/rust@8f300d0 Removes the now empty `Translator` type * rust-lang/rust@ab715c5 Renames `translate_message` to `format_diag_message`, as the function no longer does any translation * rust-lang/rust@8bcbc3f Removes a section describing the removed compiler options from the rustc dev guide
…oli-obk add field representing types *[View all comments](https://triagebot.infra.rust-lang.org/gh-comments/rust-lang/rust/pull/152730)* > [!NOTE] > This is a rewrite of #146307 by using a lang item instead of a custom `TyKind`. We still need a `hir::TyKind::FieldOf` variant, because resolving the field name cannot be done before HIR construction. The advantage of doing it this way is that we don't need to make any changes to types after HIR (including symbol mangling). At the very beginning of this feature implementation, I tried to do it using a lang item, but then quickly abandoned the approach, because at that time I was still intending to support nested fields. Here is a [range-diff](https://triagebot.infra.rust-lang.org/gh-range-diff/rust-lang/rust/605f49b27444a738ea4032cb77e3bdc4eb811bab..d15f5052095b3549111854a2555dd7026b0a729e/605f49b27444a738ea4032cb77e3bdc4eb811bab..f5f42d1e03495dbaa23671c46b15fccddeb3492f) between the two PRs --- # Add Field Representing Types (FRTs) This PR implements the first step of the field projection lang experiment (Tracking Issue: rust-lang/rust#145383). Field representing types (FRTs) are a new kind of type. They can be named through the use of the `field_of!` macro with the first argument being the type and the second the name of the field (or variant and field in the case of an enum). No nested fields are supported. FRTs natively implement the `Field` trait that's also added in this PR. It exposes information about the field such as the type of the field, the type of the base (i.e. the type that contains the field) and the offset within that base type. Only fields of non-packed structs are supported, fields of enums an unions have unique types for each field, but those do not implement the `Field` trait. This PR was created in collaboration with @dingxiangfei2009, it wouldn't have been possible without him, so huge thanks for mentoring me! I updated my library solution for field projections to use the FRTs from `core` instead of creating my own using the hash of the name of the field. See the [Rust-for-Linux/field-projection `lang-experiment` branch](https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/field-projection/tree/lang-experiment). ## API added to `core::field` ```rust pub unsafe trait Field { type Base; type Type; const OFFSET: usize; } pub macro field_of($Container:ty, $($fields:expr)+ $(,)?); ``` Along with a perma-unstable type that the compiler uses in the expansion of the macro: ```rust #[unstable(feature = "field_representing_type_raw", issue = "none")] pub struct FieldRepresentingType<T: ?Sized, const VARIANT: u32, const FIELD: u32> { _phantom: PhantomData<T>, } ``` ## Explanation of Field Representing Types (FRTs) FRTs are used for compile-time & trait-level reflection for fields of structs & tuples. Each struct & tuple has a unique compiler-generated type nameable through the `field_of!` macro. This type natively contains information about the field such as the outermost container, type of the field and its offset. Users may implement additional traits on these types in order to record custom information (for example a crate may define a [`PinnableField` trait](https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/field-projection/blob/lang-experiment/src/marker.rs#L9-L23) that records whether the field is structurally pinned). They are the foundation of field projections, a general operation that's generic over the fields of a struct. This genericism needs to be expressible in the trait system. FRTs make this possible, since an operation generic over fields can just be a function with a generic parameter `F: Field`. > [!NOTE] > The approach of field projections has changed considerably since this PR was opened. In the end we might not need FRTs, so this API is highly experimental. FRTs should act as though they were defined as `struct MyStruct_my_field<StructGenerics>;` next to the struct. So it should be local to the crate defining the struct so that one can implement any trait for the FRT from that crate. The `Field` traits should be implemented by the compiler & populated with correct information (`unsafe` code needs to be able to rely on them being correct). ## TODOs There are some `FIXME(FRTs)` scattered around the code: - Diagnostics for `field_of!` can be improved - `tests/ui/field_representing_types/nonexistent.rs` - `tests/ui/field_representing_types/non-struct.rs` - `tests/ui/field_representing_types/offset.rs` - `tests/ui/field_representing_types/not-field-if-packed.rs` - `tests/ui/field_representing_types/invalid.rs` - Simple type alias already seem to work, but might need some extra work in `compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/hir_ty_lowering/mod.rs` r? @oli-obk
This adds a variant `NoneWithError` to AST and HIR representations of the “rest” or “tail”, which is currently always treated identically to the `None` variant.
Don’t report missing fields in struct exprs with syntax errors. @Noratrieb [told me](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/custom-cargo-command-to-show-only-errors-avoid-setting-rustflags-every-time/24032/7?u=kpreid) that “it is a bug if this recovery causes follow-up errors that would not be there if the user fixed the first error.” So, here’s a contribution to hide a follow-up error that annoyed me recently. Specifically, if the user writes a struct literal with a syntax error, such as ```rust StructName { foo: 1 bar: 2 } ``` the compiler will no longer report that the field `bar` is missing in addition to the syntax error. This is my first time attempting any change to the parser or AST; please let me know if there is a better way to do what I’ve done here. ~~The part I’m least happy with is the blast radius of adding another field to `hir::ExprKind::Struct`, but this seems to be in line with the style of the rest of the code. (If this were my own code, I would consider changing `hir::ExprKind::Struct` to a nested struct, the same way it is in `ast::ExprKind`.)~~ The additional information is now stored as an additional variant of `ast::StructRest` / `hir::StructTailExpr`. **Note to reviewers:** I recommend reviewing each commit separately, and in the case of the first one with indentation changes ignored.
…gau,jhpratt
Parse `impl` restrictions
This PR implements the parsing logic for `impl` restrictions (e.g., `pub impl(crate) trait Foo {}`) as proposed in [RFC 3323](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3323-restrictions.html).
As the first step of the RFC implementation, this PR focuses strictly on the parsing phase. The new syntax is guarded by the `#![feature(impl_restriction)]` feature gate.
This implementation basically follows the pattern used in rust-lang/rust#141754.
r? @jhpratt
It's defined in `rustc_span::source_map` which doesn't make any sense because it has nothing to do with source maps. This commit moves it to the crate root, a more sensible spot for something this basic.
Add macro matcher for `guard` fragment specifier Tracking issue #153104 This PR implements a new `guard` macro matcher to match `if-let` guards (specifically [`MatchArmGuard`](https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/blob/50a1075e879be75aeec436252c84eef0fad489f4/src/expressions/match-expr.md#match-guards)). In the upcoming PR, we can use this new matcher in the `matches!` and `assert_matches!` macros to support their use with `if-let` guards. (see #152313) The original `Expr` used to represent a guard has been wrapped in a new `Guard` type, allowing us to carry the span information of the leading `if` keyword. However, it might be even better to include the `if` keyword in the `Guard` type as well? I've left a FIXME comment in the code.
Fixes a rustfmt bug for `#![feature(fn_delegation)]`
replace TODO with FIXME
…au,jhpratt Parse `mut` restrictions This PR is part of the progress implementing `mut` restrictions proposed in [RFC 3323](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3323-restrictions.html), and linked to a [GSoC proposal](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/421156-gsoc/topic/Project.3A.20Implementing.20impl.20and.20mut.20restrictions/with/592352432). This PR focuses solely on the parsing of `mut` restrictions. The keyword order is `pub(...) mut(...) unsafe field`. The new syntax is guared by `#[feature(mut_restriction)]` feature gate. Tracking Issue: rust-lang/rust#105077 r? @Urgau cc @jhpratt
Replace rustfmt code of conduct with link In rust-lang/rust#65141 we replaced the CoC file and linked the "authoritative source" on the website. I noticed that the rustfmt directory still has the CoC original file. I *think* for consistency it makes sense to have all of them linked but I'd like to hear from @calebcartwright first :-) r? @Mark-Simulacrum
Author
|
There was an issue and this subtree-push can't automatically be merged
|
ytmimi
force-pushed
the
subtree-push-nightly-2026-06-10
branch
from
3ac2695 to
a932f6d
Compare
This reverts commit 5e73127. This commit was causing local tests and CI to fail when trying to perform the subtree-push so I'm reverting this for now. It's not clear to me why this became an issue when trying to do the subtree-push, but the easiest solution right now is to simply revert the change.
ytmimi
force-pushed
the
subtree-push-nightly-2026-06-10
branch
2 times, most recently
from
efec11b to
0213e8f
Compare
ytmimi
force-pushed
the
subtree-push-nightly-2026-06-10
branch
from
0213e8f to
8aa08f3
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
15 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Bumping the toolchain version as part of a git subtree push
current toolchain (nightly-2026-02-19):
latest toolchain (nightly-2026-06-10):