We now lint on *any* use of `procedural-masquerade` crate. While this
crate still exists, its main reverse dependency (`cssparser`) no longer
depends on it. Any crates still depending off should stop doing so, as
it only exists to support very old Rust versions.
If a crate actually needs to support old versions of rustc via
`procedural-masquerade`, then they'll just need to accept the warning
until we remove it entirely (at the same time as the back-compat hack).
The latest version of `procedural-masquerade` does not work with the
latest rustc, but trying to check for the version seems like more
trouble than it's worth.
While working on this, I realized that the `proc-macro-hack` check was
never actually doing anything. The corresponding enum variant in
`proc-macro-hack` is named `Value` or `Nested` - it has never been
called `Input`. Due to a strange Crater issue, the Crater run that
tested adding this did *not* end up testing it - some of the crates that
would have failed did not actually have their tests checked, making it
seem as though the `proc-macro-hack` check was working.
The Crater issue is being discussed at
https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242791-t-infra/topic/Nearly.20identical.20Crater.20runs.20processed.20a.20crate.20differently/near/230406661
Despite the `proc-macro-hack` check not actually doing anything, we
haven't gotten any reports from users about their build being broken.
I went ahead and removed it entirely, since it's clear that no one is
being affected by the `proc-macro-hack` regression in practice.
Now that future-incompat-report support has landed in nightly Cargo, we
can start to make progress towards removing the various proc-macro
back-compat hacks that have accumulated in the compiler.
This PR introduces a new lint `proc_macro_back_compat`, which results in
a future-incompat-report entry being generated. All proc-macro
back-compat warnings will be grouped under this lint. Note that this
lint will never actually become a hard error - instead, we will remove
the special cases for various macros, which will cause older versions of
those crates to emit some other error.
I've added code to fire this lint for the `time-macros-impl` case. This
is the easiest case out of all of our current back-compat hacks - the
crate was renamed to `time-macros`, so seeing a filename with
`time-macros-impl` guarantees that an older version of the parent `time`
crate is in use.
When Cargo's future-incompat-report feature gets stabilized, affected
users will start to see future-incompat warnings when they build their
crates.
Rust contains various size checks conditional on target_arch = "x86_64",
but these checks were never intended to apply to
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnux32. Add target_pointer_width = "64" to the
conditions.
Remove unused code
Rustc has a builtin lint for detecting unused code inside a crate, but when an item is marked `pub`, the code, even if unused inside the entire workspace, is never marked as such. Therefore, I've built [warnalyzer](https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer) to detect unused items in a cross-crate setting.
Closes https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer/issues/2
Allow try blocks as the argument to return expressions
Fixes#76271
I don't think this needs to be edition-aware (phew) since `return try` in 2015 is also the start of an expression, just with a struct literal instead of a block (`return try { x: 4, y: 5 }`).
Issue #74616 tracks a backwards-compatibility hack for certain macros.
This has is implemented by hard-coding the filenames and macro names of
certain code that we want to continue to compile.
However, the initial implementation of the hack was based on the
directory structure when building the crate from its repository (e.g.
`js-sys/src/lib.rs`). When the crate is build as a dependency, it will
include a version number from the clone from the cargo registry (e.g.
`js-sys-0.3.17/src/lib.rs`), which would fail the check.
This commit modifies the backwards-compatibility hack to check that
desired crate name (`js-sys` or `time-macros-impl`) is a prefix of the
proper part of the path.
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76070#issuecomment-687215646
for more details.
