This clarifies the fact that type checking patterns unconditionally
starts with `BindByValue` as the default binding mode making the
notion of a default binding mode internal to type checking patterns.
submodules: update clippy from cd3df6be to 2bcb6155
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
````
r? @oli-obk @Manishearth
Fixes#58700Fixes#58696Fixes#49553Fixes#52210
This commit removes the special rustdoc handling for proc macros, as we
can now
retrieve their span and attributes just like any other item.
A new command-line option is added to rustdoc: `--crate-type`. This
takes the same options as rustc's `--crate-type` option. However, all
values other than `proc-macro` are treated the same. This allows Rustdoc
to enable 'proc macro mode' when handling a proc macro crate.
In compiletest, a new 'rustdoc-flags' option is added. This allows us to
pass in the '--proc-macro-crate' flag in the absence of Cargo.
I've opened [an additional PR to
Cargo](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/7159) to support passing
in this flag.
These two PRS can be merged in any order - the Cargo changes will not
take effect until the 'cargo' submodule is updated in this repository.
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
````
Feature gate definitions were split into multiple files in #63824 but
tidy kept reporting the hard-coded path. Now, it shows the full path
to the correct file.
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
