| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Currently there are two ways to peek at a `TokenStreamIter`.
- Wrap it in a `Peekable` and use that traits `peek` method.
- Use `TokenStreamIter`'s inherent `peek` method.
Some code uses one, some use the other. This commit converts all places
to the inherent method. This eliminates mixing of `TokenStreamIter` and
`Peekable<TokenStreamIter>` and some use of `impl Iterator` and `dyn
Iterator`.
|
|
Because `TokenStreamIter` is a much better name for a `TokenStream`
iterator. Also rename the `TokenStream::trees` method as
`TokenStream::iter`, and some local variables.
|
|
It's only ever used with a lookahead of 0, so this commit removes the
lookahead and renames it `peek`.
|
|
Keep track of patterns that could have introduced a binding, but didn't
When we recover from a pattern parse error, or a pattern uses `..`, we keep track of that and affect resolution error for missing bindings that could have been provided by that pattern. We differentiate between `..` and parse recovery. We silence resolution errors likely caused by the pattern parse error.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `title` in this scope
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:18:30
|
LL | if let Website { url, .. } = website {
| ------------------- this pattern doesn't include `title`, which is available in `Website`
LL | println!("[{}]({})", title, url);
| ^^^^^ not found in this scope
```
Fix #74863.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we recover from a pattern parse error, or a pattern uses `..`, we keep track of that and affect resolution error for missing bindings that could have been provided by that pattern. We differentiate between `..` and parse recovery. We silence resolution errors likely caused by the pattern parse error.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `title` in this scope
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:19:30
|
LL | println!("[{}]({})", title, url);
| ^^^^^ not found in this scope
|
note: `Website` has a field `title` which could have been included in this pattern, but it wasn't
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:17:12
|
LL | / struct Website {
LL | | url: String,
LL | | title: Option<String> ,
| | ----- defined here
LL | | }
| |_-
...
LL | if let Website { url, .. } = website {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this pattern doesn't include `title`, which is available in `Website`
```
Fix #74863.
|
|
Add AST support for unsafe binders
I'm splitting up #130514 into pieces. It's impossible for me to keep up with a huge PR like that. I'll land type system support for this next, probably w/o MIR lowering, which will come later.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@BoxyUwU` and `@lcnr` who also may want to look at this, though this PR doesn't do too much yet
|
|
estebank:silence-resolve-errors-from-mod-with-parse-errors, r=davidtwco
Keep track of parse errors in `mod`s and don't emit resolve errors for paths involving them
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around in the HIR and mark its `DefId` in the `Resolver`. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by expansion of `mod`s with parse errors.
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97734.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
|
|
involving them
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by `mod` expansion.
Fix #97734.
|
|
Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681.
Support default fields in enum struct variant
Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition:
```rust
pub enum Bar {
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant
```rust
Bar::Foo { .. }
```
`#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants.
Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields
```rust
pub enum Bar {
#[default]
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build.
Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled).
Properly instantiate MIR const
The following works:
```rust
struct S<A> {
a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(),
}
S::<i32> { .. }
```
Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval
We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users'
getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error
that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to
*always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted.
This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the
expression relies on a const parameter.
Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`:
- Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields.
- Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values.
- Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
|
|
Parse guard patterns
This implements the parsing of [RFC3637 Guard Patterns](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3637-guard-patterns.html) (see also [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129967)). This PR is extracted from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129996 with minor modifications.
cc `@max-niederman`
|
|
|
|
Fix MutVisitor's default implementations to visit Stmt's and BinOp's spans
The `Stmt` case is a bug introduced almost certainly unintentionally by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126993. The code _used_ to visit and mutate `span` correctly, but got changed as follows by that PR. Notice how `span` is **copied** into the output by `|kind| Stmt { id, kind, span }` which happens after the mutation in the correct code (red) and before the mutation in the incorrect code (green).
```diff
pub fn noop_flat_map_stmt<T: MutVisitor>(
Stmt { kind, mut span, mut id }: Stmt,
vis: &mut T,
) -> SmallVec<[Stmt; 1]> {
vis.visit_id(&mut id);
- vis.visit_span(&mut span);
let stmts: SmallVec<_> = noop_flat_map_stmt_kind(kind, vis)
.into_iter()
.map(|kind| Stmt { id, kind, span })
.collect();
if stmts.len() > 1 {
panic!(...);
}
+ vis.visit_span(&mut span);
stmts
}
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change `AttrArgs::Eq` to a struct variant
Cleanups for simplifying https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131808
Basically changes `AttrArgs::Eq` to a struct variant and then avoids several matches on `AttrArgsEq` in favor of methods on it. This will make future refactorings simpler, as they can either keep methods or switch to field accesses without having to restructure code
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inline ExprPrecedence::order into Expr::precedence
The representation of expression precedence in rustc_ast has been an obstacle to further improvements in the pretty-printer (continuing from #119105 and #119427).
Previously the operation of *"does this expression have lower precedence than that one"* (relevant for parenthesis insertion in macro-generated syntax trees) consisted of 3 steps:
1. Convert `Expr` to `ExprPrecedence` using `.precedence()`
2. Convert `ExprPrecedence` to `i8` using `.order()`
3. Compare using `<`
As far as I can guess, the reason for the separation between `precedence()` and `order()` was so that both `rustc_ast::Expr` and `rustc_hir::Expr` could convert as straightforwardly as possible to the same `ExprPrecedence` enum, and then the more finicky logic performed by `order` could be present just once.
The mapping between `Expr` and `ExprPrecedence` was intended to be as straightforward as possible:
```rust
match self.kind {
ExprKind::Closure(..) => ExprPrecedence::Closure,
...
}
```
although there were exceptions of both many-to-one, and one-to-many:
```rust
ExprKind::Underscore => ExprPrecedence::Path,
ExprKind::Path(..) => ExprPrecedence::Path,
...
ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Prefix) => ExprPrecedence::Match,
ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Postfix) => ExprPrecedence::PostfixMatch,
```
Where the nature of `ExprPrecedence` becomes problematic is when a single expression kind might be associated with multiple different precedence levels depending on context (outside the expression) and contents (inside the expression). For example consider what is the precedence of an ExprKind::Closure `$closure`. Well, on the left-hand side of a binary operator it would need parentheses in order to avoid the trailing binary operator being absorbed into the closure body: `($closure) + Rhs`, so the precedence is something lower than that of `+`. But on the right-hand side of a binary operator, a closure is just a straightforward prefix expression like a unary op, which is a relatively high precedence level, higher than binops but lower than method calls: `Lhs + $closure` is fine without parens but `($closure).method()` needs them. But as a third case, if the closure contains an explicit return type, then the precedence is an even higher level than that, never needing parenthesization even in a binop left-hand side or method call: `|| -> bool { false } + Rhs` or `|| -> bool { false }.method()`.
You can see that trying to capture all of this resolution about expressions into `ExprPrecedence` violates the intention of `ExprPrecedence` being a straightforward one-to-one correspondence from each AST and HIR `ExprKind` variant. It would be possible to attempt that by doing stuff like `ExprPrecedence::Closure(Side::Leading, ReturnType::No)`, but I don't foresee the original envisioned benefit of the `precedence()`/`order()` distinction being retained in this approach. Instead I want to move toward a model that Syn has been using successfully. In Syn, there is a Precedence enum but it differs from rustc in the following ways:
- There are [relatively few variants](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/precedence.rs#L11-L47) compared to rustc's `ExprPrecedence`. For example there is no distinction at the precedence level between returns and closures, or between loops and method calls.
- We distinguish between [leading](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L293) and [trailing](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L309) precedence, taking into account an expression's context such as what token follows it (for various syntactic bail-outs in Rust's grammar, like ambiguities around break-with-value) and how it relates to operators from the surrounding syntax tree.
- There are no hardcoded mysterious integer quantities like rustc's `PREC_CLOSURE = -40`. All precedence comparisons are performed via PartialOrd on a C-like enum.
This PR is just a first step in these changes. As you can tell from Syn, I definitely think there is value in having a dedicated type to represent precedence, instead of what `order()` is doing with `i8`. But that is a whole separate adventure because rustc_ast doesn't even agree consistently on `i8` being the type for precedence order; `AssocOp::precedence` instead uses `usize` and there are casts in both directions. It is likely that a type called `ExprPrecedence` will re-appear, but it will look substantially different from the one that existed before this PR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-Authored-By: Jacob Pratt <jacob@jhpratt.dev>
|
|
#124141 preliminaries
Preliminary changes required to start removing `Nonterminal` (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124141).
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
Add visits to nodes that already have flat_maps in ast::MutVisitor
This PR aims to add `visit_` methods for every node that has a `flat_map_` in MutVisitor, giving implementers free choice over overriding `flat_map` for 1-to-n conversions or `visit` for a 1-to-1.
There is one major problem: `flat_map_stmt`.
While all other default implementations of `flat_map`s are 1-to-1 conversion, as they either only call visits or a internal 1-to-many conversions are natural, `flat_map_stmt` doesn't follow this pattern.
`flat_map_stmt`'s default implementation is a 1-to-n conversion that panics if n > 1 (effectively being a 1-to-[0;1]). This means that it cannot be used as is for a default `visit_stmt`, which would be required to be a 1-to-1.
Implementing `visit_stmt` without runtime checks would require it to reach over a potential `flat_map_item` or `filter_map_expr` overrides and call for their `visit` counterparts directly.
Other than that, if we want to keep the behavior of `flat_map_stmt` it cannot call `visit_stmt` internally.
To me, it seems reasonable to make all default implementations 1-to-1 conversions and let implementers handle `visit_stmt` if they need it, but I don't know if calling `visit` directly when a 1-to-1 is required is ok or not.
related to #128974 & #127615
r? ``@petrochenkov``
|
|
Current places where `Interpolated` is used are going to change to
instead use invisible delimiters. This prepares for that.
- It adds invisible delimiter cases to the `can_begin_*`/`may_be_*`
methods and the `failed_to_match_macro` that are equivalent to the
existing `Interpolated` cases.
- It adds panics/asserts in some places where invisible delimiters
should never occur.
- In `Parser::parse_struct_fields` it excludes an ident + invisible
delimiter from special consideration in an error message, because
that's quite different to an ident + paren/brace/bracket.
|
|
It's not used meaningfully yet, but will be needed to get rid of
interpolated tokens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
