Most notably, this commit changes the `pub use crate::*;` in that file
to `use crate::*;`. This requires a lot of `use` items in other crates
to be adjusted, because everything defined within `rustc_span::*` was
also available via `rustc_span::source_map::*`, which is bizarre.
The commit also removes `SourceMap::span_to_relative_line_string`, which
is unused.
Implement `gen` blocks in the 2024 edition
Coroutines tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43122
`gen` block tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078
This PR implements `gen` blocks that implement `Iterator`. Most of the logic with `async` blocks is shared, and thus I renamed various types that were referring to `async` specifically.
An example usage of `gen` blocks is
```rust
fn foo() -> impl Iterator<Item = i32> {
gen {
yield 42;
for i in 5..18 {
if i.is_even() { continue }
yield i * 2;
}
}
}
```
The limitations (to be resolved) of the implementation are listed in the tracking issue
Store #[stable] attribute's `since` value in structured form
Followup to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116773#pullrequestreview-1680913901.
Prior to this PR, if you wrote an improper `since` version in a `stable` attribute, such as `#[stable(feature = "foo", since = "wat.0")]`, rustc would emit a diagnostic saying **_'since' must be a Rust version number, such as "1.31.0"_** and then throw out the whole `stable` attribute as if it weren't there. This strategy had 2 problems, both fixed in this PR:
1. If there was also a `#[deprecated]` attribute on the same item, rustc would want to enforce that the stabilization version is older than the deprecation version. This involved reparsing the `stable` attribute's `since` version, with a diagnostic **_invalid stability version found_** if it failed to parse. Of course this diagnostic was unreachable because an invalid `since` version would have already caused the `stable` attribute to be thrown out. This PR deletes that unreachable diagnostic.
2. By throwing out the `stable` attribute when `since` is invalid, you'd end up with a second diagnostic saying **_function has missing stability attribute_** even though your function is not missing a stability attribute. This PR preserves the `stable` attribute even when `since` cannot be parsed, avoiding the misleading second diagnostic.
Followups I plan to try next:
- Do the same for the `since` value of `#[deprecated]`.
- See whether it makes sense to also preserve `stable` and/or `unstable` attributes when they contain an invalid `feature`. What redundant/misleading diagnostics can this eliminate? What problems arise from not having a usable feature name for some API, in the situation that we're already failing compilation, so not concerned about anything that happens in downstream code?
Stop telling people to submit bugs for internal feature ICEs
This keeps track of usage of internal features, and changes the message to instead tell them that using internal features is not supported.
I thought about several ways to do this but now used the explicit threading of an `Arc<AtomicBool>` through `Session`. This is not exactly incremental-safe, but this is fine, as this is set during macro expansion, which is pre-incremental, and also only affects the output of ICEs, at which point incremental correctness doesn't matter much anyways.
See [MCP 620.](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/596)
Rename AsyncCoroutineKind to CoroutineSource
pulled out of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116447
Also refactors the printing infra of `CoroutineSource` to be ready for easily extending it with a `Gen` variant for `gen` blocks
This keeps track of usage of internal features, and changes the message
to instead tell them that using internal features is not supported.
See MCP 620.
Validate `feature` and `since` values inside `#[stable(…)]`
Previously the string passed to `#[unstable(feature = "...")]` would be validated as an identifier, but not `#[stable(feature = "...")]`. In the standard library there were `stable` attributes containing the empty string, and kebab-case string, neither of which should be allowed.
Pre-existing validation of `unstable`:
```rust
// src/lib.rs
#![allow(internal_features)]
#![feature(staged_api)]
#![unstable(feature = "kebab-case", issue = "none")]
#[unstable(feature = "kebab-case", issue = "none")]
pub struct Struct;
```
```console
error[E0546]: 'feature' is not an identifier
--> src/lib.rs:5:1
|
5 | #![unstable(feature = "kebab-case", issue = "none")]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
For an `unstable` attribute, the need for an identifier is obvious because the downstream code needs to write a `#![feature(...)]` attribute containing that identifier. `#![feature(kebab-case)]` is not valid syntax and `#![feature(kebab_case)]` would not work if that is not the name of the feature.
Having a valid identifier even in `stable` is less essential but still useful because it allows for informative diagnostic about the stabilization of a feature. Compare:
```rust
// src/lib.rs
#![allow(internal_features)]
#![feature(staged_api)]
#![stable(feature = "kebab-case", since = "1.0.0")]
#[stable(feature = "kebab-case", since = "1.0.0")]
pub struct Struct;
```
```rust
// src/main.rs
#![feature(kebab_case)]
use repro::Struct;
fn main() {}
```
```console
error[E0635]: unknown feature `kebab_case`
--> src/main.rs:3:12
|
3 | #![feature(kebab_case)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^
```
vs the situation if we correctly use `feature = "snake_case"` and `#![feature(snake_case)]`, as enforced by this PR:
```console
warning: the feature `snake_case` has been stable since 1.0.0 and no longer requires an attribute to enable
--> src/main.rs:3:12
|
3 | #![feature(snake_case)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: `#[warn(stable_features)]` on by default
```
report `unused_import` for empty reexports even it is pub
Fixes#116032
An easy fix. r? `@petrochenkov`
(Discovered this issue while reviewing #115993.)
Avoid a `track_errors` by bubbling up most errors from `check_well_formed`
I believe `track_errors` is mostly papering over issues that a sufficiently convoluted query graph can hit. I made this change, while the actual change I want to do is to stop bailing out early on errors, and instead use this new `ErrorGuaranteed` to invoke `check_well_formed` for individual items before doing all the `typeck` logic on them.
This works towards resolving https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97477 and various other ICEs, as well as allowing us to use parallel rustc more (which is currently rather limited/bottlenecked due to the very sequential nature in which we do `rustc_hir_analysis::check_crate`)
cc `@SparrowLii` `@Zoxc` for the new `try_par_for_each_in` function
Implement rustc part of RFC 3127 trim-paths
This PR implements (or at least tries to) [RFC 3127 trim-paths](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111540), the rustc part. That is `-Zremap-path-scope` with all of it's components/scopes.
`@rustbot` label: +F-trim-paths
There are several that are unused and can be removed.
And there are some calls to `to_string`, which can be expressed more
nicely as a `foo_to_string` call, and then `to_string` need not be
`pub`. (This requires adding `pat_to_string`).
The word "active" is currently used in two different and confusing ways:
- `ACTIVE_FEATURES` actually means "available unstable features"
- `Features::active_features` actually means "features declared in the
crate's code", which can include feature within `ACTIVE_FEATURES` but
also others.
(This is also distinct from "enabled" features which includes declared
features but also some edition-specific features automatically enabled
depending on the edition in use.)
This commit changes the `Features::active_features` to
`Features::declared_features` which actually matches its meaning.
Likewise, `Features::active` becomes `Features::declared`.
Partially outline code inside the panic! macro
This outlines code inside the panic! macro in some cases. This is split out from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115562 to exclude changes to rustc.
