fix(resolve): update the ambiguity glob binding as warning recursively

[bvanjoi]

Fixes #47525
Fixes #56593, but issue-56593-2.rs is not fixed to ensure backward compatibility.
Fixes #98467
Fixes #105235
Fixes #112713

This PR had added a field called warn_ambiguous in NameBinding which is only for back compatibly reason and used for lint.

More details: #112743

r? @petrochenkov

[rustbot]

r? @TaKO8Ki

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[petrochenkov]

Meta: not sure why new PR, we could continue in #112743, but it's fine too.

[bvanjoi]

not sure why new PR

Ahh, just because I feel there are some differences in the way they are implemented, perhaps the new PR can provide a clearer message. Of course, this matter is not important, and we don't need to dwell on it.

[petrochenkov]

Could you also move all the new tests from ui/resolve to ui/imports?

[bvanjoi]

I have added #[allow(ambiguous_glob_reexports)] f mod core_arch.

@rustbot ready

[petrochenkov]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 771c832 has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 771c832 with merge 2dc6610...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: petrochenkov
Pushing 2dc6610 to master...

[bvanjoi]

As the next step, I will attempt to address the issue at #113834.

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (2dc6610): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.5%	[1.2%, 2.6%]	13
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

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)	1.7%	[1.1%, 2.3%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	7.8%	[6.2%, 9.7%]	7
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.0%	[-4.1%, -2.4%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.7%	[1.1%, 2.3%]	6

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)	2.6%	[2.1%, 3.5%]	8
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-2.3%	[-2.3%, -2.3%]	1

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 650.158s -> 652.195s (0.31%)

[nnethercote]

Minor regressions for unused-warnings, but that is an extreme stress tests that exists mostly to detect catastrophic regressions in error handling, so it's no big deal.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

[RalfJung]

FWIW this FutureIncompatibilityReason will make the warning only show up in locally built crates, but not in cargo's future breakage report that also shows warnings from dependencies. Just making sure that this is a deliberate choice and not an accident. :)

[petrochenkov]

I just assumed all future incompatibility lints are reported for dependencies during review.

[RalfJung]

No, that's not the case. #116049 should help clarify (but doesn't change the behavior of any existing lint).