syntax: enable attributes and cfg on struct fields
This enables conditional compilation of field initializers in a struct literal, simplifying construction of structs whose fields are themselves conditionally present. For example, the intializer for the constant in the following becomes legal, and has the intuitive effect:
```rust
struct Foo {
#[cfg(unix)]
bar: (),
}
const FOO: Foo = Foo {
#[cfg(unix)]
bar: (),
};
```
It's not clear to me whether this calls for the full RFC process, but the implementation was simple enough that I figured I'd begin the conversation with code.
This commit stabilizes the `proc_macro` and `proc_macro_lib` features in the
compiler to stabilize the "Macros 1.1" feature of the language. Many more
details can be found on the tracking issue, #35900.
Closes#35900
This commit introduces 128-bit integers. Stage 2 builds and produces a working compiler which
understands and supports 128-bit integers throughout.
The general strategy used is to have rustc_i128 module which provides aliases for iu128, equal to
iu64 in stage9 and iu128 later. Since nowhere in rustc we rely on large numbers being supported,
this strategy is good enough to get past the first bootstrap stages to end up with a fully working
128-bit capable compiler.
In order for this strategy to work, number of locations had to be changed to use associated
max_value/min_value instead of MAX/MIN constants as well as the min_value (or was it max_value?)
had to be changed to use xor instead of shift so both 64-bit and 128-bit based consteval works
(former not necessarily producing the right results in stage1).
This commit includes manual merge conflict resolution changes from a rebase by @est31.
Allow legacy custom derive authors to disable warnings in downstream crates
This PR allows legacy custom derive authors to use a pre-deprecated method `registry.register_custom_derive()` instead of `registry.register_syntax_extension()` to avoid downstream deprecation warnings.
r? @nrc
Don't perform span mangling when building field/tup access nodes
There are no guarantees that the two spans used to create the new one
come from the same place or are even valid.
Fixes#36081.
Implement the `loop_break_value` feature.
This implements RFC 1624, tracking issue #37339.
- `FnCtxt` (in typeck) gets a stack of `LoopCtxt`s, which store the
currently deduced type of that loop, the desired type, and a list of
break expressions currently seen. `loop` loops get a fresh type
variable as their initial type (this logic is stolen from that for
arrays). `while` loops get `()`.
- `break {expr}` looks up the broken loop, and unifies the type of
`expr` with the type of the loop.
- `break` with no expr unifies the loop's type with `()`.
- When building MIR, loops no longer construct a `()` value at
termination of the loop; rather, the `break` expression assigns the
result of the loop.
- ~~I have also changed the loop scoping in MIR-building so that the test
of a while loop is not considered to be part of that loop. This makes
the rules consistent with #37360. The new loop scopes in typeck also
follow this rule. That means that `loop { while (break) {} }` now
terminates instead of looping forever. This is technically a breaking
change.~~
- ~~On that note, expressions like `while break {}` and `if break {}` no
longer parse because `{}` is interpreted as an expression argument to
`break`. But no code except compiler test cases should do that anyway
because it makes no sense.~~
- The RFC did not make it clear, but I chose to make `break ()` inside
of a `while` loop illegal, just in case we wanted to do anything with
that design space in the future.
This is my first time dealing with this part of rustc so I'm sure
there's plenty of problems to pick on here ^_^
This implements RFC 1624, tracking issue #37339.
- `FnCtxt` (in typeck) gets a stack of `LoopCtxt`s, which store the
currently deduced type of that loop, the desired type, and a list of
break expressions currently seen. `loop` loops get a fresh type
variable as their initial type (this logic is stolen from that for
arrays). `while` loops get `()`.
- `break {expr}` looks up the broken loop, and unifies the type of
`expr` with the type of the loop.
- `break` with no expr unifies the loop's type with `()`.
- When building MIR, `loop` loops no longer construct a `()` value at
termination of the loop; rather, the `break` expression assigns the
result of the loop. `while` loops are unchanged.
- `break` respects contexts in which expressions may not end with braced
blocks. That is, `while break { break-value } { while-body }` is
illegal; this preserves backwards compatibility.
- The RFC did not make it clear, but I chose to make `break ()` inside
of a `while` loop illegal, just in case we wanted to do anything with
that design space in the future.
This is my first time dealing with this part of rustc so I'm sure
there's plenty of problems to pick on here ^_^
Don't spin expanding stmt macros.
If we can't make progress when parsing a macro expansion as a statement then we should just bail.
This alleviates the symptoms shown in e.g. #37113 and #37234 but it doesn't fix the problem that parsing invalid enum bodies (and others) leaves the parser in a crappy state.
I'm not sold on this strategy (checking `tokens_consumed`), so if anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears!
