Stabilize "RangeFrom" patterns in 1.55
Implements a partial stabilization of #67264 and #37854.
Reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/900
# Stabilization Report
This stabilizes the `X..` pattern, shown as such, offering an exhaustive match for unsigned integers:
```rust
match x as u32 {
0 => println!("zero!"),
1.. => println!("positive number!"),
}
```
Currently if a Rust author wants to write such a match on an integer, they must use `1..={integer}::MAX` . By allowing a "RangeFrom" style pattern, this simplifies the match to not require the MAX path and thus not require specifically repeating the type inside the match, allowing for easier refactoring. This is particularly useful for instances like the above case, where different behavior on "0" vs. "1 or any positive number" is desired, and the actual MAX is unimportant.
Notably, this excepts slice patterns which include half-open ranges from stabilization, as the wisdom of those is still subject to some debate.
## Practical Applications
Instances of this specific usage have appeared in the compiler:
16143d1067/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/inhabitedness/mod.rs (L219)673d0db5e3/compiler/rustc_ty_utils/src/ty.rs (L524)
And I have noticed there are also a handful of "in the wild" users who have deployed it to similar effect, especially in the case of rejecting any value of a certain number or greater. It simply makes it much more ergonomic to write an irrefutable match, as done in Katholieke Universiteit Leuven's [SCALE and MAMBA project](05e5db00d5/WebAssembly/scale_std/src/fixed_point.rs (L685-L695)).
## Tests
There were already many tests in [src/test/ui/half-open-range/patterns](90a2e5e3fe/src/test/ui/half-open-range-patterns), as well as [generic pattern tests that test the `exclusive_range_pattern` feature](673d0db5e3/src/test/ui/pattern/usefulness/integer-ranges/reachability.rs), many dating back to the feature's introduction and remaining standing to this day. However, this stabilization comes with some additional tests to explore the... sometimes interesting behavior of interactions with other patterns. e.g. There is, at least, a mild diagnostic improvement in some edge cases, because before now, the pattern `0..=(5+1)` encounters the `half_open_range_patterns` feature gate and can thus emit the request to enable the feature flag, while also emitting the "inclusive range with no end" diagnostic. There is no intent to allow an `X..=` pattern that I am aware of, so removing the flag request is a strict improvement. The arrival of the `J | K` "or" pattern also enables some odd formations.
Some of the behavior tested for here is derived from experiments in this [Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=58777b3c715c85165ac4a70d93efeefc) example, linked at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67264#issuecomment-812770692, which may be useful to reference to observe the current behavior more closely.
In addition tests constituting an explanation of the "slicing range patterns" syntax issue are included in this PR.
## Desiderata
The exclusive range patterns and half-open range patterns are fairly strongly requested by many authors, as they make some patterns much more natural to write, but there is disagreement regarding the "closed" exclusive range pattern or the "RangeTo" pattern, especially where it creates "off by one" gaps in the presence of a "catch-all" wildcard case. Also, there are obviously no range analyses in place that will force diagnostics for e.g. highly overlapping matches. I believe these should be warned on, ideally, and I think it would be reasonable to consider such a blocker to stabilizing this feature, but there is no technical issue with the feature as-is from the purely syntactic perspective as such overlapping or missed matches can already be generated today with such a catch-all case. And part of the "point" of the feature, at least from my view, is to make it easier to omit wildcard matches: a pattern with such an "open" match produces an irrefutable match and does not need the wild card case, making it easier to benefit from exhaustiveness checking.
## History
- Implemented:
- Partially via exclusive ranges: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/35712
- Fully with half-open ranges: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/67258
- Unresolved Questions:
- The precedence concerns of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48501 were considered as likely requiring adjustment but probably wanting a uniform consistent change across all pattern styles, given https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67264#issuecomment-720711656, but it is still unknown what changes might be desired
- How we want to handle slice patterns in ranges seems to be an open question still, as witnessed in the discussion of this PR!
I checked but I couldn't actually find an RFC for this, and given "approved provisionally by lang team without an RFC", I believe this might require an RFC before it can land? Unsure of procedure here, on account of this being stabilizing a subset of a feature of syntax.
r? `@scottmcm`
Fix ICE when `main` is declared in an `extern` block
Changes in #84401 to implement `imported_main` changed how the crate entry point is found, and a declared `main` in an `extern` block was detected erroneously. This was causing the ICE described in #86110.
This PR adds a check for this case and emits an error instead. Previously a `main` declaration in an `extern` block was not detected as an entry point at all, so emitting an error shouldn't break anything that worked previously. In 1.52.1 stable this is demonstrated, with a `` `main` function not found`` error.
Fixes#86110
parser: Ensure that all nonterminals have tokens after parsing
`parse_nonterminal` should always result in something with tokens.
This requirement wasn't satisfied in two cases:
- `stmt` nonterminal with expression statements (e.g. `0`, or `{}`, or `path + 1`) because `fn parse_stmt_without_recovery` forgot to propagate `force_collect` in some cases.
- `expr` nonterminal with expressions with built-in attributes (e.g. `#[allow(warnings)] 0`) due to an incorrect optimization in `fn parse_expr_force_collect`, it assumed that all expressions starting with `#` have their tokens collected during parsing, but that's not true if all the attributes on that expression are built-in and inert.
(Discovered when trying to implement eager `cfg` expansion for all attributes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83824#issuecomment-817317170.)
r? `@Aaron1011`
further split up const_fn feature flag
This continues the work on splitting up `const_fn` into separate feature flags:
* `const_fn_trait_bound` for `const fn` with trait bounds
* `const_fn_unsize` for unsizing coercions in `const fn` (looks like only `dyn` unsizing is still guarded here)
I don't know if there are even any things left that `const_fn` guards... at least libcore and liballoc do not need it any more.
`@oli-obk` are you currently able to do reviews?
This PR modifies the macro expansion infrastructure to handle attributes
in a fully token-based manner. As a result:
* Derives macros no longer lose spans when their input is modified
by eager cfg-expansion. This is accomplished by performing eager
cfg-expansion on the token stream that we pass to the derive
proc-macro
* Inner attributes now preserve spans in all cases, including when we
have multiple inner attributes in a row.
This is accomplished through the following changes:
* New structs `AttrAnnotatedTokenStream` and `AttrAnnotatedTokenTree` are introduced.
These are very similar to a normal `TokenTree`, but they also track
the position of attributes and attribute targets within the stream.
They are built when we collect tokens during parsing.
An `AttrAnnotatedTokenStream` is converted to a regular `TokenStream` when
we invoke a macro.
* Token capturing and `LazyTokenStream` are modified to work with
`AttrAnnotatedTokenStream`. A new `ReplaceRange` type is introduced, which
is created during the parsing of a nested AST node to make the 'outer'
AST node aware of the attributes and attribute target stored deeper in the token stream.
* When we need to perform eager cfg-expansion (either due to `#[derive]` or `#[cfg_eval]`),
we tokenize and reparse our target, capturing additional information about the locations of
`#[cfg]` and `#[cfg_attr]` attributes at any depth within the target.
This is a performance optimization, allowing us to perform less work
in the typical case where captured tokens never have eager cfg-expansion run.
Extract attribute name once and match it against symbols that are being
validated, instead of using `Session::check_name` for each symbol
individually.
Assume that all validated attributes are used, instead of marking them
as such, since the attribute check should be exhaustive.
Use AnonConst for asm! constants
This replaces the old system which used explicit promotion. See #83169 for more background.
The syntax for `const` operands is still the same as before: `const <expr>`.
Fixes#83169
Because the implementation is heavily based on inline consts, we suffer from the same issues:
- We lose the ability to use expressions derived from generics. See the deleted tests in `src/test/ui/asm/const.rs`.
- We are hitting the same ICEs as inline consts, for example #78174. It is unlikely that we will be able to stabilize this before inline consts are stabilized.
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.
Allow registering tool lints with `register_tool`
Previously, there was no way to add a custom tool prefix, even if the tool
itself had registered a lint:
```rust
#![feature(register_tool)]
#![register_tool(xyz)]
#![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
```
```
$ rustc unknown-lint.rs --crate-type lib
error[E0710]: an unknown tool name found in scoped lint: `xyz::my_lint`
--> unknown-lint.rs:3:9
|
3 | #![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
| ^^^
```
This allows opting-in to lints from other tools using `register_tool`.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66079#issuecomment-788589193, ``@chorman0773``
r? ``@petrochenkov``
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.
