add suggestion applicabilities to librustc and libsyntax
A down payment on #50723. Interested in feedback on whether my `MaybeIncorrect` vs. `MachineApplicable` judgement calls are well-calibrated (and that we have a consensus on what this means).
r? @Manishearth
cc @killercup @estebank
rustc: Correctly pretty-print macro delimiters
This commit updates the `Mac_` AST structure to keep track of the delimiters
that it originally had for its invocation. This allows us to faithfully
pretty-print macro invocations not using parentheses (e.g. `vec![...]`). This in
turn helps procedural macros due to #43081.
Closes#50840
This commit updates the `Mac_` AST structure to keep track of the delimiters
that it originally had for its invocation. This allows us to faithfully
pretty-print macro invocations not using parentheses (e.g. `vec![...]`). This in
turn helps procedural macros due to #43081.
Closes#50840
Consider this a down payment on #50723. To recap, an `Applicability`
enum was recently (#50204) added, to convey to Rustfix and other tools
whether we think it's OK for them to blindly apply the suggestion, or
whether to prompt a human for guidance (because the suggestion might
contain placeholders that we can't infer, or because we think it has a
sufficiently high probability of being wrong even though it's—
presumably—right often enough to be worth emitting in the first place).
When a suggestion is marked as `MaybeIncorrect`, we try to use comments
to indicate precisely why (although there are a few places where we just
say `// speculative` because the present author's subjective judgement
balked at the idea that the suggestion has no false positives).
The `run-rustfix` directive is opporunistically set on some relevant UI
tests (and a couple tests that were in the `test/ui/suggestions`
directory, even if the suggestions didn't originate in librustc or
libsyntax). This is less trivial than it sounds, because a surprising
number of test files aren't equipped to be tested as fixed even when
they contain successfully fixable errors, because, e.g., there are more,
not-directly-related errors after fixing. Some test files need an
attribute or underscore to avoid unused warnings tripping up the "fixed
code is still producing diagnostics" check despite the fixes being
correct; this is an interesting contrast-to/inconsistency-with the
behavior of UI tests (which secretly pass `-A unused`), a behavior which
we probably ought to resolve one way or the other (filed issue #50926).
A few suggestion labels are reworded (e.g., to avoid phrasing it as a
question, which which is discouraged by the style guidelines listed in
`.span_suggestion`'s doc-comment).
Speed up the macro parser
These three commits reduce the number of allocations done by the macro parser, in some cases dramatically. For example, for a clean check builds of html5ever, the number of allocations is reduced by 40%.
Here are the rustc-benchmarks that are sped up by at least 1%.
```
html5ever-check
avg: -6.6% min: -10.3% max: -4.1%
html5ever
avg: -5.2% min: -9.5% max: -2.8%
html5ever-opt
avg: -4.3% min: -9.3% max: -1.6%
crates.io-check
avg: -1.8% min: -2.9% max: -0.6%
crates.io-opt
avg: -1.0% min: -2.2% max: -0.1%
crates.io
avg: -1.1% min: -2.2% max: -0.2%
```
rustc: Disallow modules and macros in expansions
This commit feature gates generating modules and macro definitions in procedural
macro expansions. Custom derive is exempt from this check as it would be a large
retroactive breaking change (#50587). It's hoped that we can hopefully stem the
bleeding to figure out a better solution here before opening up the floodgates.
The restriction here is specifically targeted at surprising hygiene results [1]
that result in non-"copy/paste" behavior. Hygiene and procedural macros is
intended to be avoided as much as possible for Macros 1.2 by saying everything
is "as if you copy/pasted the code", but modules and macros are sort of weird
exceptions to this rule that aren't fully fleshed out.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50504#issuecomment-387734625
cc #50504
This commit feature gates generating modules and macro definitions in procedural
macro expansions. Custom derive is exempt from this check as it would be a large
retroactive breaking change (#50587). It's hoped that we can hopefully stem the
bleeding to figure out a better solution here before opening up the floodgates.
The restriction here is specifically targeted at surprising hygiene results [1]
that result in non-"copy/paste" behavior. Hygiene and procedural macros is
intended to be avoided as much as possible for Macros 1.2 by saying everything
is "as if you copy/pasted the code", but modules and macros are sort of weird
exceptions to this rule that aren't fully fleshed out.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50504#issuecomment-387734625
cc #50504
Rollup of 12 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #50302 (Add query search order check)
- #50320 (Fix invalid path generation in rustdoc search)
- #50349 (Rename "show type declaration" to "show declaration")
- #50360 (Clarify wordings of the `unstable_name_collision` lint.)
- #50365 (Use two vectors in nearest_common_ancestor.)
- #50393 (Allow unaligned reads in constants)
- #50401 (Revert "Implement FromStr for PathBuf")
- #50406 (Forbid constructing empty identifiers from concat_idents)
- #50407 (Always inline simple BytePos and CharPos methods.)
- #50416 (check if the token is a lifetime before parsing)
- #50417 (Update Cargo)
- #50421 (Fix ICE when using a..=b in a closure.)
Failed merges:
Warn on pointless #[derive] in more places
This fixes the regression in #49934 and ensures that unused `#[derive]` invocations on statements, expressions and generic type parameters survive to trip the `unused_attributes` lint. There is a separate warning hardcoded for `#[derive]` on macro invocations since linting (even the early-lint pass) occurs after expansion. This also adds regression tests for some nodes that were already warning properly.
closes#49934
This fixes the regression in #49934 and ensures that unused `#[derive]`s on statements, expressions and generic type parameters survive to trip the `unused_attributes` lint. For `#[derive]` on macro invocations it has a hardcoded warning since linting occurs after expansion. This also adds regression testing for some nodes that were already warning properly.
closes#49934
This commit starts to lay some groundwork for the stabilization of custom
attribute invocations and general procedural macros. It applies a number of
changes discussed on [internals] as well as a [recent issue][issue], namely:
* The path used to specify a custom attribute must be of length one and cannot
be a global path. This'll help future-proof us against any ambiguities and
give us more time to settle the precise syntax. In the meantime though a bare
identifier can be used and imported to invoke a custom attribute macro. A new
feature gate, `proc_macro_path_invoc`, was added to gate multi-segment paths
and absolute paths.
* The set of items which can be annotated by a custom procedural attribute has
been restricted. Statements, expressions, and modules are disallowed behind
two new feature gates: `proc_macro_expr` and `proc_macro_mod`.
* The input to procedural macro attributes has been restricted and adjusted.
Today an invocation like `#[foo(bar)]` will receive `(bar)` as the input token
stream, but after this PR it will only receive `bar` (the delimiters were
removed). Invocations like `#[foo]` are still allowed and will be invoked in
the same way as `#[foo()]`. This is a **breaking change** for all nightly
users as the syntax coming in to procedural macros will be tweaked slightly.
* Procedural macros (`foo!()` style) can only be expanded to item-like items by
default. A separate feature gate, `proc_macro_non_items`, is required to
expand to items like expressions, statements, etc.
Closes#50038
[internals]: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/help-stabilize-a-subset-of-macros-2-0/7252
[issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50038
Update `?` repetition disambiguation.
**Do not merge** (yet)
This is a test implementation of some ideas from discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48075 . This PR
- disallows `?` repetition from taking a separator, since the separator is never used.
- disallows the use of `?` as a separator. This allows patterns like `$(a)?+` to match `+` and `a+` rather than `a?a?a`. This is a _breaking change_, but maybe that's ok? Perhaps a crater run is the right approach?
cc @durka @alexreg @nikomatsakis
