Fix regression involving custom derives on items with `$crate`
The regression was introduced in #37213.
I believe we cannot make the improvements from #37213 work with the current custom derive setup (c.f. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/37637#issuecomment-258959145) -- we'll have to wait for `TokenStream`'s API to improve.
Fixes#37637.
r? @nrc
macros: improve shadowing checks
This PR improves macro-expanded shadowing checks to work with out-of-(pre)order expansion.
Out-of-order expansion became possible in #37084, so this technically a [breaking-change] for nightly.
The regression test from this PR is an example of code that would break.
r? @nrc
Enforce the shadowing restrictions from RFC 1560 for today's macros
This PR enforces a weakened version of the shadowing restrictions from RFC 1560. More specifically,
- If a macro expansion contains a `macro_rules!` macro definition that is used outside of the expansion, the defined macro may not shadow an existing macro.
- If a macro expansion contains a `#[macro_use] extern crate` macro import that is used outside of the expansion, the imported macro may not shadow an existing macro.
This is a [breaking-change]. For example,
```rust
macro_rules! m { () => {} }
macro_rules! n { () => {
macro_rules! m { () => {} } //< This shadows an existing macro.
m!(); //< This is inside the expansion that generated `m`'s definition, so it is OK.
} }
n!();
m!(); //< This use of `m` is outside the expansion, so it causes the shadowing to be an error.
```
r? @nrc
emit feature help in cheat mode (fix nightlies)
This should fix the `distcheck` failure in the latest nightly.
cc #36539
It's probably not ideal to check the environment that often and the code ist duplicated from `librustc/session/config.rs` but this was the easiest fix I could think of.
A cleaner solution would probably be to move the `unstable_features` from `Options` to `ParseSess` and change the `diag` parameter of `emit_feature_err` to take `ParseSess` instead of a `Handler`.
Adds a `ProcMacro` form of syntax extension
This commit adds syntax extension forms matching the types for procedural macros 2.0 (RFC #1566), these still require the usual syntax extension boiler plate, but this is a first step towards proper implementation and should be useful for macros 1.1 stuff too.
Supports both attribute-like and function-like macros.
Note that RFC #1566 has not been accepted yet, but I think there is consensus that we want to head in vaguely that direction and so this PR will be useful in any case. It is also fairly easy to undo and does not break any existing programs.
This is related to #35957 in that I hope it can be used in the implementation of macros 1.1, however, there is no direct overlap and is more of a complement than a competing proposal. There is still a fair bit of work to do before the two can be combined.
r? @jseyfried
cc @alexcrichton, @cgswords, @eddyb, @aturon
