add links to query documentation for E0391

[RickleAndMortimer]

This PR adds links to https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/overview.html#queries and https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/query.html for the rustc --explain E0391 and within the compiler error itself.

Fixes: #113184

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @compiler-errors (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

[compiler-errors]

Not sure if I totally agree that we should be linking to the rustc-dev-guide for something that is a user-facing error.

[compiler-errors]

r? diagnostics

cc @jyn514

[RickleAndMortimer]

Hmm, should I implement the new error message on miri as well or is there a mistake in my code? The CI seems to fail when running tests on miri here

[jyn514]

you should bless the miri tests as well, since they depend on the internals you're changing.

[rustbot]

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

[RickleAndMortimer]

@rustbot review

[oli-obk]

Please rebase over the latest master branch to eliminate the merge commit. You can also squash all commits into one if that's easier

[oli-obk]

The guide section for rebasing can be found here

We try to avoid merge commits in PRs as much as possible

[oli-obk]

#113622 (comment) is still unaddressed

@rustbot author

[RickleAndMortimer]

Would placing the note like this suffice? I'm also trying to see if I can push the note back as it's own subdiagnostic but I'm not sure if I'm doing it correctly. Currently my fix adds

rust/compiler/rustc_query_system/src/error.rs

Lines 59 to 63 in a54a668

	pub cycle_usage: Option<CycleUsage>,
	#[note]
	pub note_span: (),
	}

to the Cycle Diagnostic but I was wondering how I can modify my commit to make the note it's own diagnostic

[RickleAndMortimer]

@rustbot review

[jyn514]

Currently my fix adds to the Cycle Diagnostic but I was wondering how I can modify my commit to make the note it's own diagnostic

fwiw i think it looks great as-is :) i don't think it needs a separate diagnostic.

[oli-obk]

This lgtm now, you just need to update rustdoc-ui tests: x test --bless rustdoc-ui

[RickleAndMortimer]

@rustbot review

[jyn514]

@bors r=oli-obk

[bors]

📌 Commit a903ac5 has been approved by oli-obk

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit a903ac5 with merge 0646a5d...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing 0646a5d to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0646a5d): 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)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 649.527s -> 649.782s (0.04%)