Remove `SymbolStr`
This was originally proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/74554#discussion_r466203544. As well as removing the icky `SymbolStr` type, it allows the removal of a lot of `&` and `*` occurrences.
Best reviewed one commit at a time.
r? `@oli-obk`
By changing `as_str()` to take `&self` instead of `self`, we can just
return `&str`. We're still lying about lifetimes, but it's a smaller lie
than before, where `SymbolStr` contained a (fake) `&'static str`!
This feature is aimed at giving proc macros access to powers similar to
those used by builtin macros such as `format_args!` or `concat!`. These
macros are able to accept macros in place of string literal parameters,
such as the format string, as they perform recursive macro expansion
while being expanded.
This can be especially useful in many cases thanks to helper macros like
`concat!`, `stringify!` and `include_str!` which are often used to
construct string literals at compile-time in user code.
For now, this method only allows expanding macros which produce
literals, although more expresisons will be supported before the method
is stabilized.
The only reason to use `abort_if_errors` is when the program is so broken that either:
1. later passes get confused and ICE
2. any diagnostics from later passes would be noise
This is never the case for lints, because the compiler has to be able to deal with `allow`-ed lints.
So it can continue to lint and compile even if there are lint errors.
rustc_ast: Turn `MutVisitor::token_visiting_enabled` into a constant
It's a visitor property rather than something that needs to be determined at runtime
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.
Fix linting when trailing macro expands to a trailing semi
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.
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.
Encode spans relative to the enclosing item
The aim of this PR is to avoid recomputing queries when code is moved without modification.
MCP at https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/443
This is achieved by :
1. storing the HIR owner LocalDefId information inside the span;
2. encoding and decoding spans relative to the enclosing item in the incremental on-disk cache;
3. marking a dependency to the `source_span(LocalDefId)` query when we translate a span from the short (`Span`) representation to its explicit (`SpanData`) representation.
Since all client code uses `Span`, step 3 ensures that all manipulations
of span byte positions actually create the dependency edge between
the caller and the `source_span(LocalDefId)`.
This query return the actual absolute span of the parent item.
As a consequence, any source code motion that changes the absolute byte position of a node will either:
- modify the distance to the parent's beginning, so change the relative span's hash;
- dirty `source_span`, and trigger the incremental recomputation of all code that
depends on the span's absolute byte position.
With this scheme, I believe the dependency tracking to be accurate.
For the moment, the spans are marked during lowering.
I'd rather do this during def-collection,
but the AST MutVisitor is not practical enough just yet.
The only difference is that we attach macro-expanded spans
to their expansion point instead of the macro itself.
Add proc_macro::Span::{before, after}.
This adds `proc_macro::Span::before()` and `proc_macro::Span::after()` to get a zero width span at the start or end of the span.
These are equivalent to rustc's `Span::shrink_to_lo()` and `Span::shrink_to_hi()` but with a less cryptic name. They are useful when generating diagnostlics like "missing \<thing\> after \<thing\>".
E.g.
```rust
syn::Error::new(ident.span().after(), "missing `:` after field name").into_compile_error()
```
Detect bare blocks with type ascription that were meant to be a `struct` literal
Address part of #34255.
Potential improvement: silence the other knock down errors in `issue-34255-1.rs`.
expand: Treat more macro calls as statement macro calls
This PR implements the suggestion from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87981#issuecomment-906641052 and treats fn-like macro calls inside `StmtKind::Item` and `StmtKind::Semi` as statement macro calls, which is consistent with treatment of attribute invocations in the same positions and with token-based macro expansion model in general.
This also allows to remove a special case in `NodeId` assignment (previously tried in #87779), and to use statement `NodeId`s for linting (`assign_id!`).
r? `@Aaron1011`
Path remapping: Make behavior of diagnostics output dependent on presence of --remap-path-prefix.
This PR fixes a regression (#87745) with `--remap-path-prefix` where the flag stopped causing diagnostic messages to be remapped as well. The regression was introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83813 where we erroneously assumed that remapping of diagnostic messages was not desired anymore (because #70642 partially undid that functionality with nobody objecting).
The issue is fixed by making `--remap-path-prefix` remap diagnostic messages again, including for paths that have been remapped in upstream crates (e.g. the standard library). This means that "sysroot-localization" (implemented in #70642) is also disabled if `rustc` is invoked with `--remap-path-prefix`. The assumption is that once someone starts explicitly remapping paths they also don't want paths to their local Rust installation in their build output.
In the future we might want to give more fine-grained control over this behavior via compiler flags (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3127 for a related RFC). For now this PR is intended as a regression fix.
This PR is an alternative to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/88191, which makes diagnostic messages be remapped unconditionally. That approach, however, would effectively revert #70642.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87745.
cc `@cbeuw`
r? `@ghost`
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.
Support negative numbers in Literal::from_str
proc_macro::Literal has allowed negative numbers in a single literal token ever since Rust 1.29, using https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/proc_macro/struct.Literal.html#method.isize_unsuffixed and similar constructors.
```rust
let lit = proc_macro::Literal::isize_unsuffixed(-10);
```
However, the suite of constructors on Literal is not sufficient for all use cases, for example arbitrary precision floats, or custom suffixes in FFI macros.
```rust
let lit = proc_macro::Literal::f64_unsuffixed(0.101001000100001000001000000100000001); // :(
let lit = proc_macro::Literal::i???_suffixed(10ulong); // :(
```
For those, macros construct the literal using from_str instead, which preserves arbitrary precision, custom suffixes, base, and digit grouping.
```rust
let lit = "0.101001000100001000001000000100000001".parse::<Literal>().unwrap();
let lit = "10ulong".parse::<Literal>().unwrap();
let lit = "0b1000_0100_0010_0001".parse::<Literal>().unwrap();
```
However, until this PR it was not possible to construct a literal token that is **both** negative **and** preserving of arbitrary precision etc.
This PR fixes `Literal::from_str` to recognize negative integer and float literals.
rfc3052 followup: Remove authors field from Cargo manifests
Since RFC 3052 soft deprecated the authors field, hiding it from
crates.io, docs.rs, and making Cargo not add it by default, and it is
not generally up to date/useful information for contributors, we may as well
remove it from crates in this repo.
Since RFC 3052 soft deprecated the authors field anyway, hiding it from
crates.io, docs.rs, and making Cargo not add it by default, and it is
not generally up to date/useful information, we should remove it from
crates in this repo.
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.
expand: Support helper attributes for built-in derive macros
This is needed for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86735 (derive macro `Default` should have a helper attribute `default`).
With this PR we can specify helper attributes for built-in derives using syntax `#[rustc_builtin_macro(MacroName, attributes(attr1, attr2, ...))]` which mirrors equivalent syntax for proc macros `#[proc_macro_derive(MacroName, attributes(attr1, attr2, ...))]`.
Otherwise expansion infra was already ready for this.
The attribute parsing code is shared between proc macro derives and built-in macros (`fn parse_macro_name_and_helper_attrs`).
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #87085 (Search result colors)
- #87090 (Make BTreeSet::split_off name elements like other set methods do)
- #87098 (Unignore some pretty printing tests)
- #87099 (Upgrade `cc` crate to 1.0.69)
- #87101 (Suggest a path separator if a stray colon is found in a match arm)
- #87102 (Add GUI test for "go to first" feature)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
- The `Rustc::expn_id` field kept redundant information
- `SyntaxContext` is no longer thrown away before `save_proc_macro_span` because it's thrown away during metadata encoding anyway
