Regression test for type params on eii

[jdonszelmann]

Somewhere along the line I fixed this one with my other PRs. This just adds the regression tests

Closes #149983

[rustbot]

r? @petrochenkov

rustbot has assigned @petrochenkov.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[Kivooeo]

r? me

r=me when ci is green

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_attr_parsing

cc @jdonszelmann, @JonathanBrouwer

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_hir/src/attrs

cc @jdonszelmann, @JonathanBrouwer

Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_passes/src/check_attr.rs

cc @jdonszelmann, @JonathanBrouwer

[jdonszelmann]

@Kivooeo ended up rebasing on a little renaming PR so they don't conflict down the line, assigned you too, and improved the error messages a bit so there's no duplicate. Could you take a look again? Despite having already approved the original PR

[Kivooeo]

Could you take a look again?

not sure why this PR contains changes from #150972

[jdonszelmann]

Cause I rebased on it, to use the new names. This one can merge after that one

[jdonszelmann]

(i.e. it's a stacked PR, if only github could render that.... :/)

[jdonszelmann]

I use jj, so I've got autorebase. So I often end up submitting multiple PRs, some stacked on others. Feel free to review after #150972 merged

@rustbot blocked #150972

[Kivooeo]

check_no_generics is not required anymore?

[jdonszelmann]

I think not, an EII definition always generates a foreign function, and foreign functions are already disallowed to take generics. This would give a duplicate error which is exactly what I noticed and why I added another commit on top to fix.

[jdonszelmann]

wait, dya mind if I add another test for that to make sure?

[jdonszelmann]

okay, I realized you were totally right: we need the other check too make sure the implementation of the EII has no generics. The duplicate error is caused by the fact that an EII with default implementation also contains an implementation, so we error on both the definition and implementation. I'll fix

[Kivooeo]

wait, dya mind if I add another test for that to make sure?

not really, it seems like this check was originally added to fix that issue #149983, so removing it was kinda questionable because maybe it was fixed by some another pr that I'm unaware of and this check already unnecessary

but glad that you found out that this check is still needed ^^

[jdonszelmann]

wasn't fixed by anything else, but the remove was wrong. Now I just changed it slightly so there's no duplicate error with that last commit, so I think this is the best outcome :)

[Kivooeo]

just to make sure, first two commits will be removed from this pr before merge after #150972 lands right?

[jdonszelmann]

indeed, same hashes too :)

[Kivooeo]

yeah, i just don't quite sure what "stacked PR" is, so trying to figure out what are we going to do with this next

btw, implementation wise i have no questions, so feel free to r=me once it unblocked after other pr lands

[rust-bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #150981) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

[jdonszelmann]

@bors r=kivooeo rollup

[rust-bors]

📌 Commit b454f76 has been approved by kivooeo

It is now in the queue for this repository.