Track span of function in method calls, and use this in #[track_caller]
Fixes#69977
When we parse a chain of method calls like `foo.a().b().c()`, each
`MethodCallExpr` gets assigned a span that starts at the beginning of
the call chain (`foo`). While this is useful for diagnostics, it means
that `Location::caller` will return the same location for every call
in a call chain.
This PR makes us separately record the span of the function name and
arguments for a method call (e.g. `b()` in `foo.a().b().c()`). This
`Span` is passed through HIR lowering and MIR building to
`TerminatorKind::Call`, where it is used in preference to
`Terminator.source_info.span` when determining `Location::caller`.
This new span is also useful for diagnostics where we want to emphasize
a particular method call - for an example, see
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/72389#discussion_r436035990
Fixes#69977
When we parse a chain of method calls like `foo.a().b().c()`, each
`MethodCallExpr` gets assigned a span that starts at the beginning of
the call chain (`foo`). While this is useful for diagnostics, it means
that `Location::caller` will return the same location for every call
in a call chain.
This PR makes us separately record the span of the function name and
arguments for a method call (e.g. `b()` in `foo.a().b().c()`). This
`Span` is passed through HIR lowering and MIR building to
`TerminatorKind::Call`, where it is used in preference to
`Terminator.source_info.span` when determining `Location::caller`.
This new span is also useful for diagnostics where we want to emphasize
a particular method call - for an example, see
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/72389#discussion_r436035990
Previously, we would parse `struct Foo where;` and `struct Foo;`
identically, leading to an 'empty' `where` clause being omitted during
pretty printing. This will cause us to lose spans when proc-macros
involved, since we will have a collected `where` token that does not
appear in the pretty-printed item.
We now explicitly track the presence of a `where` token during parsing,
so that we can distinguish between `struct Foo where;` and `struct Foo;`
during pretty-printing
ast: `Mac`/`Macro` -> `MacCall`
It's now obvious that these refer to macro calls rather than to macro definitions.
It's also a single name instead of two different names in different places.
`rustc_expand` usually calls macro calls in a wide sense (including attributes and derives) "macro invocations", but structures and variants renamed in this PR are only relevant to fn-like macros, so it's simpler and clearer to just call them calls.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/63586#discussion_r314232513
r? @eddyb
Deduplicate identifier printing a bit
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/67010 introduced a couple more subtly different ways to print an identifier.
This PR attempts to restore the order.
The most basic identifier printing interface is `Formatter`-based now, so `String`s are not allocated unless required.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
parse: fuse associated and extern items up to defaultness
Language changes:
- The grammar of extern `type` aliases is unified with associated ones, and becomes:
```rust
TypeItem = "type" ident generics {":" bounds}? where_clause {"=" type}? ";" ;
```
Semantic restrictions (`ast_validation`) are added to forbid any parameters in `generics`, any bounds in `bounds`, and any predicates in `where_clause`, as well as the presence of a type expression (`= u8`).
(Work still remains to fuse this with free `type` aliases, but this can be done later.)
- The grammar of constants and static items (free, associated, and extern) now permits the absence of an expression, and becomes:
```rust
GlobalItem = {"const" {ident | "_"} | "static" "mut"? ident} {"=" expr}? ";" ;
```
- A semantic restriction is added to enforce the presence of the expression (the body).
- A semantic restriction is added to reject `const _` in associated contexts.
Together, these changes allow us to fuse the grammar of associated items and extern items up to `default`ness which is the main goal of the PR.
-----------------------
We are now very close to fully fusing the entirely of item parsing and their ASTs. To progress further, we must make a decision: should we parse e.g. `default use foo::bar;` and whatnot? Accepting that is likely easiest from a parsing perspective, as it does not require using look-ahead, but it is perhaps not too onerous to only accept it for `fn`s (and all their various qualifiers), `const`s, `static`s, and `type`s.
r? @petrochenkov
