expand: Do not ICE when a legacy AST-based macro attribute produces and empty expression
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80251
The reported error is the same as for `let _ = #[cfg(FALSE)] EXPR;`
Found with https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer.
Dubious changes:
- Is anyone else using rustc_apfloat? I feel weird completely deleting
x87 support.
- Maybe some of the dead code in rustc_data_structures, in case someone
wants to use it in the future?
- Don't change rustc_serialize
I plan to scrap most of the json module in the near future (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/418) and fixing the
tests needed more work than I expected.
TODO: check if any of the comments on the deleted code should be kept.
Add function core::iter::zip
This makes it a little easier to `zip` iterators:
```rust
for (x, y) in zip(xs, ys) {}
// vs.
for (x, y) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys) {}
```
You can `zip(&mut xs, &ys)` for the conventional `iter_mut()` and
`iter()`, respectively. This can also support arbitrary nesting, where
it's easier to see the item layout than with arbitrary `zip` chains:
```rust
for ((x, y), z) in zip(zip(xs, ys), zs) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in zip(xs, zip(ys, zs)) {}
// vs.
for ((x, y), z) in xs.into_iter().zip(ys).zip(xz) {}
for (x, (y, z)) in xs.into_iter().zip((ys.into_iter().zip(xz)) {}
```
It may also format more nicely, especially when the first iterator is a
longer chain of methods -- for example:
```rust
iter::zip(
trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1),
)
// vs.
trait_ref
.substs
.types()
.skip(1)
.zip(impl_trait_ref.substs.types().skip(1))
```
This replaces the tuple-pair `IntoIterator` in #78204.
There is prior art for the utility of this in [`itertools::zip`].
[`itertools::zip`]: https://docs.rs/itertools/0.10.0/itertools/fn.zip.html
With this PR, we now lint for all cases where we perform some kind of
proc-macro back-compat hack.
The `js-sys` had an internal fix made to properly handle
`None`-delimited groups, so we need to manually check the version in the
filename. As a result, we no longer apply the back-compat hack to cases
where the version number is missing file the file path. This should not
affect any users of the `crates.io` crate.
Unlike the other cases of this lint, there's no simple way to detect if
an old version of the relevant crate (`syn`) is in use. The `actix-web`
crate only depends on `pin-project` v1.0.0, so checking the version of
`actix-web` does not guarantee that a new enough version of
`pin-project` (and therefore `syn`) is in use.
Instead, we rely on the fact that virtually all of the regressed crates
are pinned to a pre-1.0 version of `pin-project`. When this is the case,
bumping the `actix-web` dependency will pull in the *latest* version of
`pin-project`, which has an explicit dependency on a newer v dependency
on a newer version of `syn`.
The lint message tells users to update `actix-web`, since that's what
they're most likely to have control over. We could potentially tell them
to run `cargo update -p syn`, but I think it's more straightforward to
suggest an explicit change to the `Cargo.toml`
The `actori-web` fork had its last commit over a year ago, and appears
to just be a renamed fork of `actix-web`. Therefore, I've removed the
`actori-web` check entirely - any crates that actually get broken can
simply update `syn` themselves.
Extend `proc_macro_back_compat` lint to `procedural-masquerade`
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 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.
StructField -> FieldDef ("field definition")
Field -> ExprField ("expression field", not "field expression")
FieldPat -> PatField ("pattern field", not "field pattern")
Also rename visiting and other methods working on them.
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.
expand: Do not allocate `Lrc` for `allow_internal_unstable` list unless necessary
This allocation is done for any macro defined in the current crate, or used from a different crate.
EDIT: This also removes an `Lrc` increment from each *use* of such macro, which may be more significant.
Noticed when reviewing https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/82367.
This probably doesn't matter, but let's do a perf run.
Implement built-in attribute macro `#[cfg_eval]` + some refactoring
This PR implements a built-in attribute macro `#[cfg_eval]` as it was suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79078 to avoid `#[derive()]` without arguments being abused as a way to configure input for other attributes.
The macro is used for eagerly expanding all `#[cfg]` and `#[cfg_attr]` attributes in its input ("fully configuring" the input).
The effect is identical to effect of `#[derive(Foo, Bar)]` which also fully configures its input before passing it to macros `Foo` and `Bar`, but unlike `#[derive]` `#[cfg_eval]` can be applied to any syntax nodes supporting macro attributes, not only certain items.
`cfg_eval` was the first name suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79078, but other alternatives are also possible, e.g. `cfg_expand`.
```rust
#[cfg_eval]
#[my_attr] // Receives `struct S {}` as input, the field is configured away by `#[cfg_eval]`
struct S {
#[cfg(FALSE)]
field: u8,
}
```
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82679
expand: Refactor module loading
This is an accompanying PR to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/82399, but they can be landed independently.
See individual commits for more details.
Anyone should be able to review this equally well because all people actually familiar with this code left the project.
Inherit `#[stable(..)]` annotations in enum variants and fields from its item
Lint changes for #65515. The stdlib will have to be updated once this lands in beta and that version is promoted in master.
This ownership kind is only constructed in the case of path attributes like `#[path = ".."]` without a file name segment, which always represent some kind of directories and will produce and error on attempt to parse them as a module file.
When token-based attribute handling is implemeneted in #80689,
we will need to access tokens from `HasAttrs` (to perform
cfg-stripping), and we will to access attributes from `HasTokens` (to
construct a `PreexpTokenStream`).
This PR merges the `HasAttrs` and `HasTokens` traits into a new
`AstLike` trait. The previous `HasAttrs` impls from `Vec<Attribute>` and `AttrVec`
are removed - they aren't attribute targets, so the impls never really
made sense.
Crate root is sufficiently different from `mod` items, at least at syntactic level.
Also remove customization point for "`mod` item or crate root" from AST visitors.
Along the way, we also implement a handful of diagnostics improvements
and fixes, particularly with respect to the special handling of `||` in
place of `|` and when there are leading verts in function params, which
don't allow top-level or-patterns anyway.
