The only reason to use `abort_if_errors` is when the program is so broken that either:
1. later passes get confused and ICE
2. any diagnostics from later passes would be noise
This is never the case for lints, because the compiler has to be able to deal with `allow`-ed lints.
So it can continue to lint and compile even if there are lint errors.
Report fatal lexer errors in `--cfg` command line arguments
Fixes#89358. The erroneous behavior was apparently introduced by `@Mark-Simulacrum` in a678e31911; the idea is to silence individual parser errors and instead emit one catch-all error message after parsing. However, for the example in #89358, a fatal lexer error is created here:
edebf77e00/compiler/rustc_parse/src/lexer/mod.rs (L340-L349)
This fatal error aborts the compilation, and so the call to `new_parser_from_source_str()` never returns and the catch-all error message is never emitted. I have therefore changed the `SilentEmitter` to silence only non-fatal errors; with my changes, for the rustc invocation described in #89358:
```sh
rustc --cfg "abc\""
```
I get the following output:
```
error[E0765]: unterminated double quote string
|
= note: this error occurred on the command line: `--cfg=abc"`
```
Adopt let_else across the compiler
This performs a substitution of code following the pattern:
```
let <id> = if let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
```
To simplify it to:
```
let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
```
By adopting the `let_else` feature (cc #87335).
The PR also updates the syn crate because the currently used version of the crate doesn't support `let_else` syntax yet.
Note: Generally I'm the person who *removes* usages of unstable features from the compiler, not adds more usages of them, but in this instance I think it hopefully helps the feature get stabilized sooner and in a better state. I have written a [comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87335#issuecomment-944846205) on the tracking issue about my experience and what I feel could be improved before stabilization of `let_else`.
This performs a substitution of code following the pattern:
let <id> = if let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
To simplify it to:
let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
By adopting the let_else feature.
In `splice_lines`, there is some arithmetic to compute the required
alignment such that future substitutions in a suggestion are aligned
correctly. However, this assumed that the current substitution's span
was only on a single line. In circumstances where this was not true, it
could result in a arithmetic overflow when the substitution's end
column was less than the substitution's start column.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
"Fix" an overflow in byte position math
r? `@estebank`
help! I fixed the ICE only to brick the diagnostic.
I mean, it was wrong previously (using an already expanded macro span), but it is really bad now XD
Use smaller spans for some structured suggestions
Use more accurate suggestion spans for
* argument parse error
* fully qualified path
* missing code block type
* numeric casts
* On suggestions that include deletions, use a diff inspired output format
* When suggesting addition, use `+` as underline
* Color highlight modified span
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.
* Always point at macros, including derive macros
* Point at non-local items that introduce a trait requirement
* On private associated item, point at definition
# Stabilization report
## Summary
This stabilizes using macro expansion in key-value attributes, like so:
```rust
#[doc = include_str!("my_doc.md")]
struct S;
#[path = concat!(env!("OUT_DIR"), "/generated.rs")]
mod m;
```
See the changes to the reference for details on what macros are allowed;
see Petrochenkov's excellent blog post [on internals](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/macro-expansion-points-in-attributes/11455)
for alternatives that were considered and rejected ("why accept no more
and no less?")
This has been available on nightly since 1.50 with no major issues.
## Notes
### Accepted syntax
The parser accepts arbitrary Rust expressions in this position, but any expression other than a macro invocation will ultimately lead to an error because it is not expected by the built-in expression forms (e.g., `#[doc]`). Note that decorators and the like may be able to observe other expression forms.
### Expansion ordering
Expansion of macro expressions in "inert" attributes occurs after decorators have executed, analogously to macro expressions appearing in the function body or other parts of decorator input.
There is currently no way for decorators to accept macros in key-value position if macro expansion must be performed before the decorator executes (if the macro can simply be copied into the output for later expansion, that can work).
## Test cases
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/attributes/key-value-expansion-on-mac.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/rustdoc/external-doc.rs
The feature has also been dogfooded extensively in the compiler and
standard library:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83329
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83230
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/82641
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80534
## Implementation history
- Initial proposal: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55414#issuecomment-554005412
- Experiment to see how much code it would break: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/67121
- Preliminary work to restrict expansion that would conflict with this
feature: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77271
- Initial implementation: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78837
- Fix for an ICE: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80563
## Unresolved Questions
~~https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/83366#issuecomment-805180738 listed some concerns, but they have been resolved as of this final report.~~
## Additional Information
There are two workarounds that have a similar effect for `#[doc]`
attributes on nightly. One is to emulate this behavior by using a limited version of this feature that was stabilized for historical reasons:
```rust
macro_rules! forward_inner_docs {
($e:expr => $i:item) => {
#[doc = $e]
$i
};
}
forward_inner_docs!(include_str!("lib.rs") => struct S {});
```
This also works for other attributes (like `#[path = concat!(...)]`).
The other is to use `doc(include)`:
```rust
#![feature(external_doc)]
#[doc(include = "lib.rs")]
struct S {}
```
The first works, but is non-trivial for people to discover, and
difficult to read and maintain. The second is a strange special-case for
a particular use of the macro. This generalizes it to work for any use
case, not just including files.
I plan to remove `doc(include)` when this is stabilized. The
`forward_inner_docs` workaround will still compile without warnings, but
I expect it to be used less once it's no longer necessary.
