Changes:
````
Refactor some minor things
Use more if-chains
Refactor 'lint_or_fun_call'
Refactor 'check_unwrap_or_default'
Refactor 'check_impl_item'
Add missing field to LitKind::Str
Run update_lints for Unicode lint
Re-add false positive check
Add raw string regression test for useless_format lint
Re-factor useless_format lint
Update Unicode lint tests
Add two more tests, allow 2 other lints.
Fix `temporary_cstring_as_ptr` false negative
Add more testcases for redundant_pattern_matching
Fix suggestions for redundant_pattern_matching
Add note on how to find the latest beta commit
Remove feature gate for async_await
Update if_chain doc link
Requested test cleanup
Requested changes
Ignore lines starting with '#'
run-rustfix for unseparated-prefix-literals
Add autofixable suggestion for unseparated integer literal suffices
Further text improvements
Add image
docs: Explain how to update the changelog
````
Audit uses of `apply_mark` in built-in macros + Remove default macro transparencies
Every use of `apply_mark` in a built-in or procedural macro is supposed to look like this
```rust
location.with_ctxt(SyntaxContext::root().apply_mark(ecx.current_expansion.id))
```
where `SyntaxContext::root()` means that the built-in/procedural macro is defined directly, rather than expanded from some other macro.
However, few people understood what `apply_mark` does, so we had a lot of copy-pasted uses of it looking e.g. like
```rust
span = span.apply_mark(ecx.current_expansion.id);
```
, which doesn't really make sense for procedural macros, but at the same time is not too harmful, if the macros use the traditional `macro_rules` hygiene.
So, to fight this, we stop using `apply_mark` directly in built-in macro implementations, and follow the example of regular proc macros instead and use analogues of `Span::def_site()` and `Span::call_site()`, which are much more intuitive and less error-prone.
- `ecx.with_def_site_ctxt(span)` takes the `span`'s location and combines it with a def-site context.
- `ecx.with_call_site_ctxt(span)` takes the `span`'s location and combines it with a call-site context.
Even if called multiple times (which sometimes happens due to some historical messiness of the built-in macro code) these functions will produce the same result, unlike `apply_mark` which will grow the mark chain further in this case.
---
After `apply_mark`s in built-in macros are eliminated, the remaining `apply_mark`s are very few in number, so we can start passing the previously implicit `Transparency` argument to them explicitly, thus eliminating the need in `default_transparency` fields in hygiene structures and `#[rustc_macro_transparency]` annotations on built-in macros.
So, the task of making built-in macros opaque can now be formulated as "eliminate `with_legacy_ctxt` in favor of `with_def_site_ctxt`" rather than "replace `#[rustc_macro_transparency = "semitransparent"]` with `#[rustc_macro_transparency = "opaque"]`".
r? @matthewjasper
bootstrap: Merge the libtest build step with libstd
Since its inception rustbuild has always worked in three stages: one for
libstd, one for libtest, and one for rustc. These three stages were
architected around crates.io dependencies, where rustc wants to depend
on crates.io crates but said crates don't explicitly depend on libstd,
requiring a sysroot assembly step in the middle. This same logic was
applied for libtest where libtest wants to depend on crates.io crates
(`getopts`) but `getopts` didn't say that it depended on std, so it
needed `std` built ahead of time.
Lots of time has passed since the inception of rustbuild, however,
and we've since gotten to the point where even `std` itself is depending
on crates.io crates (albeit with some wonky configuration). This
commit applies the same logic to the two dependencies that the `test`
crate pulls in from crates.io, `getopts` and `unicode-width`. Over the
many years since rustbuild's inception `unicode-width` was the only
dependency picked up by the `test` crate, so the extra configuration
necessary to get crates building in this crate graph is unlikely to be
too much of a burden on developers.
After this patch it means that there are now only two build phasese of
rustbuild, one for libstd and one for rustc. The libtest/libproc_macro
build phase is all lumped into one now with `std`.
This was originally motivated by rust-lang/cargo#7216 where Cargo was
having to deal with synthesizing dependency edges but this commit makes
them explicit in this repository.
Refactor `feature_gate.rs` into modules & cleanup
Split `src/libsyntax/feature_gate.rs` into `src/libsyntax/feature_gate/` with files:
- `accepted.rs` (accepted feature gates)
- `removed.rs` (...)
- `active.rs` (...)
- `builtin_attrs.rs` (definition of builtin attributes and their gates as well as gating `cfg` flags)
- `check.rs` (post expansion checking of feature gates)
- `mod.rs` (just reexports)
Additionally, `tidy.rs` is adjusted to respect the new scheme.
Also, `builtin_attrs.rs` sees some cleanup, organization, and DSL-ification to reduce repetition.
This is probably best read commit-by-commit I think.
r? @oli-obk
Since its inception rustbuild has always worked in three stages: one for
libstd, one for libtest, and one for rustc. These three stages were
architected around crates.io dependencies, where rustc wants to depend
on crates.io crates but said crates don't explicitly depend on libstd,
requiring a sysroot assembly step in the middle. This same logic was
applied for libtest where libtest wants to depend on crates.io crates
(`getopts`) but `getopts` didn't say that it depended on std, so it
needed `std` built ahead of time.
Lots of time has passed since the inception of rustbuild, however,
and we've since gotten to the point where even `std` itself is depending
on crates.io crates (albeit with some wonky configuration). This
commit applies the same logic to the two dependencies that the `test`
crate pulls in from crates.io, `getopts` and `unicode-width`. Over the
many years since rustbuild's inception `unicode-width` was the only
dependency picked up by the `test` crate, so the extra configuration
necessary to get crates building in this crate graph is unlikely to be
too much of a burden on developers.
After this patch it means that there are now only two build phasese of
rustbuild, one for libstd and one for rustc. The libtest/libproc_macro
build phase is all lumped into one now with `std`.
This was originally motivated by rust-lang/cargo#7216 where Cargo was
having to deal with synthesizing dependency edges but this commit makes
them explicit in this repository.
All transparancies are passed explicitly now.
Also remove `#[rustc_macro_transparency]` annotations from built-in macros, they are no longer used.
`#[rustc_macro_transparency]` only makes sense for declarative macros now.
Replace them with equivalents of `Span::{def_site,call_site}` from proc macro API.
The new API is much less error prone and doesn't rely on macros having default transparency.
Update rustfmt to 1.4.5
This update includes a bug fix that fixes generating invalid code when formatting an impl block with const generics inside a where clause.
**Changes**
0462008de8...1de58ce46d
Tweak E0308 on opaque types
```
error[E0308]: if and else have incompatible types
--> file.rs:21:9
|
18 | / if true {
19 | | thing_one()
| | ----------- expected because of this
20 | | } else {
21 | | thing_two()
| | ^^^^^^^^^^^ expected opaque type, found a different opaque type
22 | | }.await
| |_____- if and else have incompatible types
|
= note: expected type `impl std::future::Future` (opaque type)
found type `impl std::future::Future` (opaque type)
= note: distinct uses of `impl Trait` result in different opaque types
= help: if both futures resolve to the same type, consider `await`ing on both of them
```
r? @Centril
CC #63167
