diff options
| author | Dylan DPC <dylan.dpc@gmail.com> | 2021-03-18 00:28:10 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | GitHub <noreply@github.com> | 2021-03-18 00:28:10 +0100 |
| commit | 7cd7dee315f2c1a80e67c114812fa8a2e32c9040 (patch) | |
| tree | f467fd974bde88a46687e96c9882d910fc3371c4 /compiler/rustc_ast/src | |
| parent | b688b694d083b94ed19c8c93fb321a52ca98d4d9 (diff) | |
| parent | d6a7c1d47fdf68626b5535ff24bd115e4aba7d71 (diff) | |
| download | rust-7cd7dee315f2c1a80e67c114812fa8a2e32c9040.tar.gz rust-7cd7dee315f2c1a80e67c114812fa8a2e32c9040.zip | |
Rollup merge of #83168 - Aaron1011:lint-procedural-masquerade, 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.
Diffstat (limited to 'compiler/rustc_ast/src')
| -rw-r--r-- | compiler/rustc_ast/src/token.rs | 27 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 27 deletions
diff --git a/compiler/rustc_ast/src/token.rs b/compiler/rustc_ast/src/token.rs index 093f7f2668c..7e58426d27d 100644 --- a/compiler/rustc_ast/src/token.rs +++ b/compiler/rustc_ast/src/token.rs @@ -784,33 +784,6 @@ impl Nonterminal { NtTT(tt) => tt.span(), } } - - /// This nonterminal looks like some specific enums from - /// `proc-macro-hack` and `procedural-masquerade` crates. - /// We need to maintain some special pretty-printing behavior for them due to incorrect - /// asserts in old versions of those crates and their wide use in the ecosystem. - /// See issue #73345 for more details. - /// FIXME(#73933): Remove this eventually. - pub fn pretty_printing_compatibility_hack(&self) -> bool { - let item = match self { - NtItem(item) => item, - NtStmt(stmt) => match &stmt.kind { - ast::StmtKind::Item(item) => item, - _ => return false, - }, - _ => return false, - }; - - let name = item.ident.name; - if name == sym::ProceduralMasqueradeDummyType || name == sym::ProcMacroHack { - if let ast::ItemKind::Enum(enum_def, _) = &item.kind { - if let [variant] = &*enum_def.variants { - return variant.ident.name == sym::Input; - } - } - } - false - } } impl PartialEq for Nonterminal { |
