Add more diagnostic items

[Serial-ATA]

This just adds a handful diagnostic items I noticed were missing.

Would it be worth doing this for all of the remaining types? I'm willing to do it if it'd be helpful.

[rust-highfive]

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with r? rust-lang/libs-api @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to request review from a libs-api team reviewer. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

• Stabilizing library features
• Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
• Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
• Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
• Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

[rust-highfive]

r? @kennytm

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[Serial-ATA]

I think it's hitting this:

rust/compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/error_reporting/mod.rs

Lines 1834 to 1840 in 0b3404b

	ifself.tcx.trait_is_auto(def_id)
	|| self.tcx.lang_items().items().contains(&Some(def_id))
	|| self.tcx.get_diagnostic_name(def_id).is_some()
	{
	// Mentioning implementers of `Copy`, `Debug` and friends is not useful.
	returnfalse;
	}

Should a special case be added for Error? Actually, why is it even hitting that? It's cfg(not(test)).

[Serial-ATA]

r? @Manishearth

[Manishearth]

@bors r+

seems fine, unsure if we need to add more

cc @estebank just to keep him aware

[bors]

📌 Commit ea013e0 has been approved by Manishearth

[GuillaumeGomez]

Ci isn't happy.

@bors: r-

[Serial-ATA]

Here's why CI is failing: #96302 (comment). It shouldn't be interfering with tests, so I'm not sure what's going on here.

[Manishearth]

Not sure either, @estebank?

[estebank]

Oh! So that's a very crude filter to avoid verbose output, relying on the assumption that if something is a diagnostic item there are better things than list them in those errors. Can you do ./x.py test src/test/ui --bless and add the changes to .stderr files to a new commit so we can see if the changes are acceptable?

In the past I've added diagnostic items on an as-needed basis, though (as they can be safely added in the same commit as the change that uses them).

[Serial-ATA]

I'm confused. Over 700 files were modified, and most of these changes don't even look remotely related to what's been added. The only diagnostic item I needed is causing so many problems 😄

[estebank]

Try pulling a more recent master and rebasing your changes on top of it, I'm noticing some output changes caused by a relatively recently landed PR.

[Serial-ATA]

Oops, I blindly added COMPILETEST_FORCE_STAGE0=1 since it wouldn't let me do ./x.py test src/test/ui --bless. Turns out the only difference is that one file from before.

[estebank]

I'm as baffled as you are 😮

@bors retry lets check it's not spurious

[Dylan-DPC]

failed in rollup

[Dylan-DPC]

@bors r-

[Serial-ATA]

Looks like the failing test just had a windows only version added. Hopefully that's the last issue with this 😄

[estebank]

@bors r=manishearth rollup=never

[xFrednet]

I'm guessing bors is stuck

@bors ping

[bors]

😪 I'm awake I'm awake

[xFrednet]

Copied from this previous comment. I hope that's okay 😅

@bors r=manishearth rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit be9dd2d has been approved by manishearth

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit be9dd2d with merge 6846164...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: manishearth
Pushing 6846164 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (6846164): comparison url.

Summary:

• Primary benchmarks: no relevant changes found
• Secondary benchmarks: 🎉 relevant improvement found

	Regressions 😿 (primary)	Regressions 😿 (secondary)	Improvements 🎉 (primary)	Improvements 🎉 (secondary)	All 😿 🎉 (primary)
count1	0	0	0	1	0
mean2	N/A	N/A	N/A	-1.4%	N/A
max	N/A	N/A	N/A	-1.4%	N/A

If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf.

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Footnotes

1. number of relevant changes↩

2. the arithmetic mean of the percent change↩