Recover from where clauses placed before tuple struct bodies

[fmease]

Open to any suggestions regarding the phrasing of the diagnostic.

Fixes #100790.
@rustbot label A-diagnostics
r? diagnostics

[rustbot]

rustc_error_messages was changed

cc @davidtwco, @compiler-errors, @JohnTitor, @estebank, @TaKO8Ki

[fmease]

Personally, I am not a fan of how this diff is rendered. In my eyes, it looks as if it's only the where keyword that needs to be replaced and as if the trait bounds are allowed to stay.
I would have expected it to like this (nested diff incoming):

- - where
- + (pub usize, usize) where (): Sized, String: Clone;
+ - where
+ -     (): Sized,
+ -     String: Clone,
+ + (pub usize, usize) where (): Sized, String: Clone;

I've double-checked that the span is correct by running rustfix, so it's only the rendering that's off.

[estebank]

File a ticket for it. It is definitely in the Emitter.

[compiler-errors]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit f9e3934000d4cc6021ee137f534add1d89e6ce96 with merge 1f760d25d5966701f7b2485ad562295fd23c55d7...

[fmease]

I hope my force-push (of a tiny superfluous change) does not disrupt the try-build & the timing procedure. I will try to implement Esteban's suggestion locally (re. the parser cloning).

[compiler-errors]

restarting try-build, @bors try

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 7128f813a5eb922b67484a89f58ebffe5283dda5 with merge eaf94153e7aaf83e8915bc3a09df0298be5cb31e...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: eaf94153e7aaf83e8915bc3a09df0298be5cb31e (eaf94153e7aaf83e8915bc3a09df0298be5cb31e)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (eaf94153e7aaf83e8915bc3a09df0298be5cb31e): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

[fmease]

Sorry for the delay, I couldn't find time earlier.
@rustbot review

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c9f6f2efe4219283a5fe63ffc91aa42bf3afc284 with merge a5c4c38f991a61a94339059bdc0db329ed613de3...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[fmease]

Test failure is unrelated to my PR. It looks like a flaky rustdoc GUI test (CC @GuillaumeGomez). Edit: Fixed in #106689.

Could someone please reapprove my PR? Thanks! :)

[GuillaumeGomez]

O.o

What the hell happened...

@bors r=estebank

[bors]

💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.

• This pull request previously failed. You should add more commits to fix the bug, or use retry to trigger a build again.
• There's another pull request that is currently being tested, blocking this pull request: Always permit ConstProp to exploit arithmetic identities #106340

[bors]

📌 Commit c9f6f2efe4219283a5fe63ffc91aa42bf3afc284 has been approved by estebank

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Ah it should have been a retry instead, my bad. Also, are you fully rebased on master? If not that would explain why this error occurred...

[fmease]

Ah it should have been a retry instead, my bad. Also, are you fully rebased on master? If not that would explain why this error occurred...

I am not. I didn't know that it could lead to such problems. I'm gonna rebase onto latest master, then you can retry again. Thanks a lot! Sorry for the noise.

[GuillaumeGomez]

It's really just a wild guess because the error doesn't look flaky at all this time.

[fmease]

#105670 is probably going to get merged first making my PR unmergeable soon. So please hold off from r+'ing at the moment.

[fmease]

It looks like it's gonna take a short while for #105670 (the PR I tried to wait for) to be ready again for merging (after failing tests & the src/test migration etc.).

Could someone please bors-reapprove this PR? CI is green. Thanks a lot in advance! ❤️

[estebank]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 70ddde7 has been approved by estebank

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 70ddde7 with merge d4203ed...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: estebank
Pushing d4203ed to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d4203ed): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.2%	[2.2%, 2.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.1%	[-1.1%, -1.1%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.7%	[2.7%, 2.7%]	1

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.8%	[4.5%, 5.1%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0