In some places we use `Vec<Attribute>` and some places we use
`ThinVec<Attribute>` (a.k.a. `AttrVec`). This results in various points
where we have to convert between `Vec` and `ThinVec`.
This commit changes the places that use `Vec<Attribute>` to use
`AttrVec`. A lot of this is mechanical and boring, but there are
some interesting parts:
- It adds a few new methods to `ThinVec`.
- It implements `MapInPlace` for `ThinVec`, and introduces a macro to
avoid the repetition of this trait for `Vec`, `SmallVec`, and
`ThinVec`.
Overall, it makes the code a little nicer, and has little effect on
performance. But it is a precursor to removing
`rustc_data_structures::thin_vec::ThinVec` and replacing it with
`thin_vec::ThinVec`, which is implemented more efficiently.
More robust fallback for `use` suggestion
Our old way to suggest where to add `use`s would first look for pre-existing `use`s in the relevant crate/module, and if there are *no* uses, it would fallback on trying to use another item as the basis for the suggestion.
But this was fragile, as illustrated in issue #87613
This PR instead identifies span of the first token after any inner attributes, and uses *that* as the fallback for the `use` suggestion.
Fix#87613
Improve allowness of the unexpected_cfgs lint
This pull-request improve the allowness (`#[allow(...)]`) of the `unexpected_cfgs` lint.
Before this PR only crate level `#![allow(unexpected_cfgs)]` worked, now with this PR it also work when put around `cfg!` or if it is in a upper level. Making it work ~for the attributes `cfg`, `cfg_attr`, ...~ for the same level is awkward as the current code is design to give "Some parent node that is close to this macro call" (cf. https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_expand/base/struct.ExpansionData.html) meaning that allow on the same line as an attribute won't work. I'm note even sure if this would be possible.
Found while working on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94298.
r? ````````@petrochenkov````````
* Recover from invalid `'label: ` before block.
* Make suggestion to enclose statements in a block multipart.
* Point at `match`, `while`, `loop` and `unsafe` keywords when failing
to parse their expression.
* Do not suggest `{ ; }`.
* Do not suggest `|` when very unlikely to be what was wanted (in `let`
statements).
Adopt let_else across the compiler
This performs a substitution of code following the pattern:
```
let <id> = if let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
```
To simplify it to:
```
let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
```
By adopting the `let_else` feature (cc #87335).
The PR also updates the syn crate because the currently used version of the crate doesn't support `let_else` syntax yet.
Note: Generally I'm the person who *removes* usages of unstable features from the compiler, not adds more usages of them, but in this instance I think it hopefully helps the feature get stabilized sooner and in a better state. I have written a [comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87335#issuecomment-944846205) on the tracking issue about my experience and what I feel could be improved before stabilization of `let_else`.
This performs a substitution of code following the pattern:
let <id> = if let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
To simplify it to:
let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
By adopting the let_else feature.
When a macro is used in the trailing expression position of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }`), we currently parse it as an
expression, rather than a statement. As a result, we ended up
using the `NodeId` of the containing statement as our `lint_node_id`,
even though we don't normally do this for macro calls.
If such a macro expands to an expression with a `#[cfg]` attribute,
then the trailing statement can get removed entirely. This lead to
an ICE, since we were usng the `NodeId` of the expression to emit
a lint.
Ths commit makes us skip updating `lint_node_id` when handling
a macro in trailing expression position. This will cause us to
lint at the closest parent of the macro call.
Instead of updating global state to mark attributes as used,
we now explicitly emit a warning when an attribute is used in
an unsupported position. As a side effect, we are to emit more
detailed warning messages (instead of just a generic "unused" message).
`Session.check_name` is removed, since its only purpose was to mark
the attribute as used. All of the callers are modified to use
`Attribute.has_name`
Additionally, `AttributeType::AssumedUsed` is removed - an 'assumed
used' attribute is implemented by simply not performing any checks
in `CheckAttrVisitor` for a particular attribute.
We no longer emit unused attribute warnings for the `#[rustc_dummy]`
attribute - it's an internal attribute used for tests, so it doesn't
mark sense to treat it as 'unused'.
With this commit, a large source of global untracked state is removed.
Fixes#87877
This change interacts badly with `noop_flat_map_stmt`,
which synthesizes multiple statements with the same `NodeId`.
I'm working on a better fix that will still allow us to
remove this special case. For now, let's revert the change
to fix the ICE.
This reverts commit a4262cc984, reversing
changes made to 8ee962f88e.
Display an extra note for trailing semicolon lint with trailing macro
Currently, we parse macros at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }`) as expressions, rather than
statements. This means that a macro invoked in this position
cannot expand to items or semicolon-terminated expressions.
In the future, we might want to start parsing these kinds of macros
as statements. This would make expansion more 'token-based'
(i.e. macro expansion behaves (almost) as if you just textually
replaced the macro invocation with its output). However,
this is a breaking change (see PR #78991), so it will require
further discussion.
Since the current behavior will not be changing any time soon,
we need to address the interaction with the
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` lint. Since we are parsing
the result of macro expansion as an expression, we will emit a lint
if there's a trailing semicolon in the macro output. However, this
results in a somewhat confusing message for users, since it visually
looks like there should be no problem with having a semicolon
at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }` => `fn foo() { produced_expr; }`)
To help reduce confusion, this commit adds a note explaining
that the macro is being interpreted as an expression. Additionally,
we suggest adding a semicolon after the macro *invocation* - this
will cause us to parse the macro call as a statement. We do *not*
use a structured suggestion for this, since the user may actually
want to remove the semicolon from the macro definition (allowing
the block to evaluate to the expression produced by the macro).
Currently, we parse macros at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }`) as expressions, rather than
statements. This means that a macro invoked in this position
cannot expand to items or semicolon-terminated expressions.
In the future, we might want to start parsing these kinds of macros
as statements. This would make expansion more 'token-based'
(i.e. macro expansion behaves (almost) as if you just textually
replaced the macro invocation with its output). However,
this is a breaking change (see PR #78991), so it will require
further discussion.
Since the current behavior will not be changing any time soon,
we need to address the interaction with the
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` lint. Since we are parsing
the result of macro expansion as an expression, we will emit a lint
if there's a trailing semicolon in the macro output. However, this
results in a somewhat confusing message for users, since it visually
looks like there should be no problem with having a semicolon
at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }` => `fn foo() { produced_expr; }`)
To help reduce confusion, this commit adds a note explaining
that the macro is being interpreted as an expression. Additionally,
we suggest adding a semicolon after the macro *invocation* - this
will cause us to parse the macro call as a statement. We do *not*
use a structured suggestion for this, since the user may actually
want to remove the semicolon from the macro definition (allowing
the block to evaluate to the expression produced by the macro).
These attributes are currently discarded.
This may change in the future (see #63221), but for now,
placing inert attributes on a macro invocation does nothing,
so we should warn users about it.
Technically, it's possible for there to be attribute macro
on the same macro invocation (or at a higher scope), which
inspects the inert attribute. For example:
```rust
#[look_for_inline_attr]
#[inline]
my_macro!()
#[look_for_nested_inline]
mod foo { #[inline] my_macro!() }
```
However, this would be a very strange thing to do.
Anyone running into this can manually suppress the warning.
When we need to emit a lint at a macro invocation, we currently use the
`NodeId` of its parent definition (e.g. the enclosing function). This
means that any `#[allow]` / `#[deny]` attributes placed 'closer' to the
macro (e.g. on an enclosing block or statement) will have no effect.
This commit computes a better `lint_node_id` in `InvocationCollector`.
When we visit/flat_map an AST node, we assign it a `NodeId` (earlier
than we normally would), and store than `NodeId` in current
`ExpansionData`. When we collect a macro invocation, the current
`lint_node_id` gets cloned along with our `ExpansionData`, allowing it
to be used if we need to emit a lint later on.
This improves the handling of `#[allow]` / `#[deny]` for
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` and some `asm!`-related lints.
The 'legacy derive helpers' lint retains its current behavior
(I've inlined the now-removed `lint_node_id` function), since
there isn't an `ExpansionData` readily available.
