Fix span of visibility
This PR
1. adds a closing parenthesis to the span of `Visibility::Crate` (e.g. `pub(crate)`). The current span only covers `pub(crate`.
2. adds a `span` field to `Visibility::Restricted`. This span covers the entire visibility expression (e.g. `pub (in self)`). Currently all we can have is a span for `Path`.
This PR is motivated by the bug found in rustfmt (https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/rustfmt/issues/2398).
The first change is a strict improvement IMHO. The second change may not be desirable, as it adds a field which is currently not used by the compiler.
rustdoc: move manual "extern crate" statements outside automatic "fn main"s in doctests
Gated on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48095 - I based the branch atop that so i could show off the change in one of its tests, the actual change in this PR is just the last commit
There are a handful of unfortunate assumptions in the way rustdoc processes `extern crate` statements in doctests:
1. In the absence of an `extern crate` statement in the test, if the test also uses the local crate name, it will automatically insert an `extern crate cratename;` statement into the test.
2. If the doctest *does* include an `extern crate` statement, rustdoc will not automatically insert one, on the assumption that doing so would introduce a duplicate import.
3. If a doctest does not have the substring `fn main` outside a comment, rustdoc will wrap the whole doctest in a generated `fn main` so it can be compiled.
In short, whenever you write a doctest like this...
```rust
//! extern crate my_crate;
//! my_crate::some_cool_thing();
```
...rustdoc will turn it into (something like) this:
```rust
fn main() {
extern crate my_crate;
my_crate::some_cool_thing();
}
```
This creates issues when compiled, because now `my_crate` isn't even properly in scope! This forces people who want to have multiple crates in their doctests (or an explicit `extern crate` statement) to also manually include their own `fn main`, so rustdoc doesn't put their imports in the wrong place.
This PR just taps into another processing step rustdoc does to doctests: Whenever you add an `#![inner_attribute]` to the beginning of a doctest, rustdoc will actually splice those out and put it before the generated `fn main`. Now, we can just do the same with `extern crate`s at the beginning, too, and get a much nicer experience.
Now, the above example will be converted into this:
```rust
extern crate my_crate;
fn main() {
my_crate::some_cool_thing();
}
```
1. When the invalid condition is hit, write out the relevant variables too
2. In compile-fail/parse-fail tests, check for ICE first, so the invalid
error patterns won't mask our ICE output.
The following submodules have been updated for a new version of LLVM:
- `src/llvm`
- `src/libcompiler_builtins` - transitively contains compiler-rt
- `src/dlmalloc`
This also updates the docker container for dist-i686-freebsd as the old 16.04
container is no longer capable of building LLVM. The
compiler-rt/compiler-builtins and dlmalloc updates are pretty routine without
much interesting happening, but the LLVM update here is of particular note.
Unlike previous updates I haven't cherry-picked all existing patches we had on
top of our LLVM branch as we have a [huge amount][patches4] and have at this
point forgotten what most of them are for. Instead I started from the current
`release_60` branch in LLVM and only applied patches that were necessary to get
our tests working and building.
The current set of custom rustc-specific patches included in this LLVM update are:
* rust-lang/llvm@1187443 - this is how we actually implement
`cfg(target_feature)` for now and continues to not be upstreamed. While a
hazard for SIMD stabilization this commit is otherwise keeping the status
quo of a small rustc-specific feature.
* rust-lang/llvm@013f2ec - this is a rustc-specific optimization that we haven't
upstreamed, notably teaching LLVM about our allocation-related routines (which
aren't malloc/free). Once we stabilize the global allocator routines we will
likely want to upstream this patch, but for now it seems reasonable to keep it
on our fork.
* rust-lang/llvm@a65bbfd - I found this necessary to fix compilation of LLVM in
our 32-bit linux container. I'm not really sure why it's necessary but my
guess is that it's because of the absolutely ancient glibc that we're using.
In any case it's only updating pieces we're not actually using in LLVM so I'm
hoping it'll turn out alright. This doesn't seem like something we'll want to
upstream.c
* rust-lang/llvm@77ab1f0 - this is what's actually enabling LLVM to build in our
i686-freebsd container, I'm not really sure what's going on but we for sure
probably don't want to upstream this and otherwise it seems not too bad for
now at least.
* rust-lang/llvm@9eb9267 - we currently suffer on MSVC from an [upstream bug]
which although diagnosed to a particular revision isn't currently fixed
upstream (and the bug itself doesn't seem too active). This commit is a
partial revert of the suspected cause of this regression (found via a
bisection). I'm sort of hoping that this eventually gets fixed upstream with a
similar fix (which we can replace in our branch), but for now I'm also hoping
it's a relatively harmless change to have.
After applying these patches (plus one [backport] which should be [backported
upstream][llvm-back]) I believe we should have all tests working on all
platforms in our current test suite. I'm like 99% sure that we'll need some more
backports as issues are reported for LLVM 6 when this propagates through
nightlies, but that's sort of just par for the course nowadays!
In any case though some extra scrutiny of the patches here would definitely be
welcome, along with scrutiny of the "missing patches" like a [change to pass
manager order](rust-lang/llvm@2717444753), [another change to pass manager
order](rust-lang/llvm@c782febb7b), some [compile fixes for
sparc](rust-lang/llvm@1a83de63c4), and some [fixes for
solaris](rust-lang/llvm@c2bfe0abb).
[patches4]: https://github.com/rust-lang/llvm/compare/5401fdf23...rust-llvm-release-4-0-1
[backport]: https://github.com/rust-lang/llvm/commit/5c54c252db
[llvm-back]: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36114
[upstream bug]: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36096
---
The update to LLVM 6 is desirable for a number of reasons, notably:
* This'll allow us to keep up with the upstream wasm backend, picking up new
features as they start landing.
* Upstream LLVM has fixed a number of SIMD-related compilation errors,
especially around AVX-512 and such.
* There's a few assorted known bugs which are fixed in LLVM 5 and aren't fixed
in the LLVM 4 branch we're using.
* Overall it's not a great idea to stagnate with our codegen backend!
This update is mostly powered by #47730 which is allowing us to update LLVM
*independent* of the version of LLVM that Emscripten is locked to. This means
that when compiling code for Emscripten we'll still be using the old LLVM 4
backend, but when compiling code for any other target we'll be using the new
LLVM 6 target. Once Emscripten updates we may no longer need this distinction,
but we're not sure when that will happen!
Closes#43370Closes#43418Closes#47015Closes#47683Closesrust-lang-nursery/stdsimd#157Closesrust-lang-nursery/rust-wasm#3
Correctly format `extern crate` conflict resolution help
Closes#45799. Follow up to @Cldfire's #45820.
If the `extern` statement that will have a suggestion ends on a `;`, synthesize a new span that doesn't include it.
Fix ICE when use trees have multiple empty nested groups
The issue was caused by an oversight of mine in the original use_nested_groups PR, where different paths were resolved with the same `NodeId` in some cases (such as in `use {{}, {}};`).
Fixes#47673
r? @petrochenkov
Tweaks to invalid ctor messages
- Do not suggest using a constructor that isn't accessible
- Suggest the appropriate syntax (`()`/`{}` as appropriate)
- Add note when trying to use `Self` as a ctor
CC #22488, fix#47085.
Don't include bang in macro replacement suggestion
When we suggest the replacement for a macro we include the "!" in the suggested replacement but the span only contains the name of the macro itself. Using that replacement would cause a duplicate "!" in the resulting code.
I originally tried to extend the span to be replaced by 1 byte in rust-lang/rust#47424. However, @zackmdavis pointed out that there can be whitespace between the macro name and the bang.
Instead, just remove the bang from the suggested replacement.
Fixes#47418
r? @estebank
