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.
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.
Fix use placement for suggestions near main.
This fixes an edge case for the suggestion to add a `use`. When running with `--test`, the `main` function will be annotated with an `#[allow(dead_code)]` attribute. The `UsePlacementFinder` would end up using the dummy span of that synthetic attribute. If there are top-level inner attributes, this would place the `use` in the wrong position. The solution here is to ignore attributes with dummy spans.
In the process of working on this, I discovered that the `use_suggestion_placement` test was broken. `UsePlacementFinder` is unaware of active attributes. Attributes like `#[derive]` don't exist in the AST since they are removed. Fixing that is difficult, since the AST does not retain enough information. I considered trying to place the `use` towards the top of the module after any `extern crate` items, but I couldn't find a way to get a span for the start of a module block (the `mod` span starts at the `mod` keyword, and it seems tricky to find the spot just after the opening bracket and past inner attributes). For now, I just put some comments about the issue. This appears to have been a known issue in #44215 where the test for it was introduced, and the fix seemed to be deferred to later.
Don't use a generator for BoxedResolver
The generator is non-trivial and requires unsafe code anyway. Using regular unsafe code without a generator is much easier to follow.
Based on #85810 as it touches rustc_interface too.
Disallow shadowing const parameters
This pull request fixes#85348. Trying to shadow a `const` parameter as follows:
```rust
fn foo<const N: i32>() {
let N @ _ = 0;
}
```
currently causes an ICE. With my changes, I get:
```
error[E0530]: let bindings cannot shadow const parameters
--> test.rs:2:9
|
1 | fn foo<const N: i32>() {
| - the const parameter `N` is defined here
2 | let N @ _ = 0;
| ^ cannot be named the same as a const parameter
error: aborting due to previous error
```
This is the same error you get when trying to shadow a constant:
```rust
const N: i32 = 0;
let N @ _ = 0;
```
```
error[E0530]: let bindings cannot shadow constants
--> src/lib.rs:3:5
|
2 | const N: i32 = 0;
| ----------------- the constant `N` is defined here
3 | let N @ _ = 0;
| ^ cannot be named the same as a constant
error: aborting due to previous error
```
The reason for disallowing shadowing in both cases is described [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/33118#issuecomment-233962221) (the comment there only talks about constants, but the same reasoning applies to `const` parameters).
Fix diagnostic for cross crate private tuple struct constructors
Fixes#78708.
There was already some limited support for certain cross-crate scenarios but that didn't handle a tuple struct rexported from an inner module for example (e.g. the NonZero* types as seen in #85049).
```Rust
➜ cat bug.rs
fn main() {
let _x = std::num::NonZeroU32(12);
let n = std::num::NonZeroU32::new(1).unwrap();
match n {
std::num::NonZeroU32(i) => {},
}
}
```
**Before:**
<details>
```Rust
➜ rustc +nightly bug.rs
error[E0423]: expected function, tuple struct or tuple variant, found struct `std::num::NonZeroU32`
--> bug.rs:2:14
|
2 | let _x = std::num::NonZeroU32(12);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: use struct literal syntax instead: `std::num::NonZeroU32 { 0: val }`
|
::: /home/luqman/.rustup/toolchains/nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/rustlib/src/rust/library/core/src/num/nonzero.rs:148:1
[snip]
error[E0532]: expected tuple struct or tuple variant, found struct `std::num::NonZeroU32`
--> bug.rs:5:9
|
5 | std::num::NonZeroU32(i) => {},
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: use struct pattern syntax instead: `std::num::NonZeroU32 { 0 }`
|
::: /home/luqman/.rustup/toolchains/nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/rustlib/src/rust/library/core/src/num/nonzero.rs:148:1
[snip]
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
Some errors have detailed explanations: E0423, E0532.
For more information about an error, try `rustc --explain E0423`.
```
</details>
**After:**
<details>
```Rust
➜ /rust/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage1/bin/rustc bug.rs
error[E0423]: cannot initialize a tuple struct which contains private fields
--> bug.rs:2:14
|
2 | let _x = std::num::NonZeroU32(12);
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
note: constructor is not visible here due to private fields
--> /rust/library/core/src/num/nonzero.rs:148:1
[snip]
error[E0532]: cannot match against a tuple struct which contains private fields
--> bug.rs:5:9
|
5 | std::num::NonZeroU32(i) => {},
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
note: constructor is not visible here due to private fields
--> bug.rs:5:30
|
5 | std::num::NonZeroU32(i) => {},
| ^ private field
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
Some errors have detailed explanations: E0423, E0532.
For more information about an error, try `rustc --explain E0423`.
```
</details>
One question is if we should only collect the needed info for the cross-crate case after encountering an error instead of always doing it. Perf run perhaps to gauge the impact.
Suggest adding a type parameter for impls
Add a new suggestion upon encountering an unknown type in a `impl` that suggests adding a new type parameter. This diagnostic suggests to add a new type parameter even though it may be a const parameter, however after adding the parameter and running rustc again a follow up error steers the user to change the type parameter to a const parameter.
```rust
struct X<const C: ()>();
impl X<C> {}
```
suggests
```
error[E0412]: cannot find type `C` in this scope
--> bar.rs:2:8
|
1 | struct X<const C: ()>();
| ------------------------ similarly named struct `X` defined here
2 | impl X<C> {}
| ^
|
help: a struct with a similar name exists
|
2 | impl X<X> {}
| ^
help: you might be missing a type parameter
|
2 | impl<C> X<C> {}
| ^^^
```
After adding a type parameter the code now becomes
```rust
struct X<const C: ()>();
impl<C> X<C> {}
```
and the error now fully steers the user towards the correct code
```
error[E0747]: type provided when a constant was expected
--> bar.rs:2:11
|
2 | impl<C> X<C> {}
| ^
|
help: consider changing this type parameter to be a `const` generic
|
2 | impl<const C: ()> X<C> {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
r? `@estebank`
Somewhat related #84946
