| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Disallow ambiguous attributes on expressions
This implements the suggestion in [#15701](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701#issuecomment-2033124217) to disallow ambiguous outer attributes on expressions. This should resolve one of the concerns blocking the stabilization of `stmt_expr_attributes`.
|
|
The current message for "`->` used for field access" is the following:
```rust
error: expected one of `!`, `.`, `::`, `;`, `?`, `{`, `}`, or an operator, found `->`
--> src/main.rs:2:6
|
2 | a->b;
| ^^ expected one of 8 possible tokens
```
(playground link[1])
This PR tries to address this by adding a dedicated error message and recovery. The proposed error message is:
```
error: `->` used for field access or method call
--> ./tiny_test.rs:2:6
|
2 | a->b;
| ^^ help: try using `.` instead
|
= help: the `.` operator will dereference the value if needed
```
(feel free to bikeshed it as much as necessary)
[1]: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=7f8b6f4433aa7866124123575456f54e
Signed-off-by: Sasha Pourcelot <sasha.pourcelot@protonmail.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
r=compiler-errors
Suggest associated type bounds on problematic associated equality bounds
Fixes #105056. TL;DR: Suggest `Trait<Ty: Bound>` on `Trait<Ty = Bound>` in Rust >=2021.
~~Blocked on #122055 (stabilization of `associated_type_bounds`), I'd say.~~ (merged)
|
|
Handle str literals written with `'` lexed as lifetime
Given `'hello world'` and `'1 str', provide a structured suggestion for a valid string literal:
```
error[E0762]: unterminated character literal
--> $DIR/lex-bad-str-literal-as-char-3.rs:2:26
|
LL | println!('hello world');
| ^^^^
|
help: if you meant to write a `str` literal, use double quotes
|
LL | println!("hello world");
| ~ ~
```
```
error[E0762]: unterminated character literal
--> $DIR/lex-bad-str-literal-as-char-1.rs:2:20
|
LL | println!('1 + 1');
| ^^^^
|
help: if you meant to write a `str` literal, use double quotes
|
LL | println!("1 + 1");
| ~ ~
```
Fix #119685.
|
|
|
|
It has no effect on anything in the test suite.
|
|
|
|
Given `'hello world'` and `'1 str', provide a structured suggestion for a valid string literal:
```
error[E0762]: unterminated character literal
--> $DIR/lex-bad-str-literal-as-char-3.rs:2:26
|
LL | println!('hello world');
| ^^^^
|
help: if you meant to write a `str` literal, use double quotes
|
LL | println!("hello world");
| ~ ~
```
```
error[E0762]: unterminated character literal
--> $DIR/lex-bad-str-literal-as-char-1.rs:2:20
|
LL | println!('1 + 1');
| ^^^^
|
help: if you meant to write a `str` literal, use double quotes
|
LL | println!("1 + 1");
| ~ ~
```
Fix #119685.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deny braced macro invocations in let-else
Fixes #119057
Pending T-lang decision
cc `@dtolnay`
|
|
Detect `NulInCStr` error earlier.
By making it an `EscapeError` instead of a `LitError`. This makes it like the other errors produced when checking string literals contents, e.g. for invalid escape sequences or bare CR chars.
NOTE: this means these errors are issued earlier, before expansion, which changes behaviour. It will be possible to move the check back to the later point if desired. If that happens, it's likely that all the string literal contents checks will be delayed together.
One nice thing about this: the old approach had some code in `report_lit_error` to calculate the span of the nul char from a range. This code used a hardwired `+2` to account for the `c"` at the start of a C string literal, but this should have changed to a `+3` for raw C string literals to account for the `cr"`, which meant that the caret in `cr"` nul error messages was one short of where it should have been. The new approach doesn't need any of this and avoids the off-by-one error.
r? ```@fee1-dead```
|
|
|
|
|
|
By making it an `EscapeError` instead of a `LitError`. This makes it
like the other errors produced when checking string literals contents,
e.g. for invalid escape sequences or bare CR chars.
NOTE: this means these errors are issued earlier, before expansion,
which changes behaviour. It will be possible to move the check back to
the later point if desired. If that happens, it's likely that all the
string literal contents checks will be delayed together.
One nice thing about this: the old approach had some code in
`report_lit_error` to calculate the span of the nul char from a range.
This code used a hardwired `+2` to account for the `c"` at the start of
a C string literal, but this should have changed to a `+3` for raw C
string literals to account for the `cr"`, which meant that the caret in
`cr"` nul error messages was one short of where it should have been. The
new approach doesn't need any of this and avoids the off-by-one error.
|
|
Rollup of 10 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #118521 (Enable address sanitizer for MSVC targets using INFERASANLIBS linker flag)
- #119026 (std::net::bind using -1 for openbsd which in turn sets it to somaxconn.)
- #119195 (Make named_asm_labels lint not trigger on unicode and trigger on format args)
- #119204 (macro_rules: Less hacky heuristic for using `tt` metavariable spans)
- #119362 (Make `derive(Trait)` suggestion more accurate)
- #119397 (Recover parentheses in range patterns)
- #119417 (Uplift some miscellaneous coroutine-specific machinery into `check_closure`)
- #119539 (Fix typos)
- #119540 (Don't synthesize host effect args inside trait object types)
- #119555 (Add codegen test for RVO on MaybeUninit)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Co-authored-by: León Orell Valerian Liehr <me@fmease.dev>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduce support for `async gen` blocks
I'm delighted to demonstrate that `async gen` block are not very difficult to support. They're simply coroutines that yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and return `()`.
**This PR is WIP and in draft mode for now** -- I'm mostly putting it up to show folks that it's possible. This PR needs a lang-team experiment associated with it or possible an RFC, since I don't think it falls under the jurisdiction of the `gen` RFC that was recently authored by oli (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3513, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078).
### Technical note on the pre-generator-transform yield type:
The reason that the underlying coroutines yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and not `Poll<T>` (which would make more sense, IMO, for the pre-transformed coroutine), is because the `TransformVisitor` that is used to turn coroutines into built-in state machine functions would have to destructure and reconstruct the latter into the former, which requires at least inserting a new basic block (for a `switchInt` terminator, to match on the `Poll` discriminant).
This does mean that the desugaring (at the `rustc_ast_lowering` level) of `async gen` blocks is a bit more involved. However, since we already need to intercept both `.await` and `yield` operators, I don't consider it much of a technical burden.
r? `@ghost`
|
|
|
|
never_patterns: Parse match arms with no body
Never patterns are meant to signal unreachable cases, and thus don't take bodies:
```rust
let ptr: *const Option<!> = ...;
match *ptr {
None => { foo(); }
Some(!),
}
```
This PR makes rustc accept the above, and enforces that an arm has a body xor is a never pattern. This affects parsing of match arms even with the feature off, so this is delicate. (Plus this is my first non-trivial change to the parser).
~~The last commit is optional; it introduces a bit of churn to allow the new suggestions to be machine-applicable. There may be a better solution? I'm not sure.~~ EDIT: I removed that commit
r? `@compiler-errors`
|
|
|
|
Because a macro invocation can expand to a never pattern, we can't rule
out a `arm!(),` arm at parse time. Instead we detect that case at
expansion time, if the macro tries to output a pattern followed by `=>`.
|
|
When encountering match arm (pat if expr) => {}, recover and suggest removing parentheses. Fix #100825.
|
|
Suggest `let` or `==` on typo'd let-chain
When encountering a bare assignment in a let-chain, suggest turning the
assignment into a `let` expression or an equality check.
```
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/bad-if-let-suggestion.rs:5:8
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i = 2 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
help: you might have meant to continue the let-chain
|
LL | if let x = 1 && let i = 2 {}
| +++
help: you might have meant to compare for equality
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i == 2 {}
| +
```
|
|
When encountering a bare assignment in a let-chain, suggest turning the
assignment into a `let` expression or an equality check.
```
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/bad-if-let-suggestion.rs:5:8
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i = 2 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
help: you might have meant to continue the let-chain
|
LL | if let x = 1 && let i = 2 {}
| +++
help: you might have meant to compare for equality
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i == 2 {}
| +
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
Give a better diagnostic for missing parens in Fn* bounds
Fixes #108109
It would be nice to try and recover here, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort, especially as the bounds on the recovered function would be incorrect.
|
|
Recover from missing param list in function definitions
Addresses the other issue mentioned in #108109
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Detect missing `=>` after match guard during parsing
```
error: expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`, found `.`
--> $DIR/missing-fat-arrow.rs:25:14
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b {
| - while parsing this struct
LL | a.value = 1;
| -^ expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`
| |
| while parsing this struct field
|
help: try naming a field
|
LL | a: a.value = 1;
| ++
help: you might have meant to start a match arm after the match guard
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b => {
| ++
```
Fix #78585.
|
|
|
|
```
error: expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`, found `.`
--> $DIR/missing-fat-arrow.rs:25:14
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b {
| - while parsing this struct
LL | a.value = 1;
| -^ expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`
| |
| while parsing this struct field
|
help: try naming a field
|
LL | a: a.value = 1;
| ++
help: you might have meant to start a match arm after the match guard
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b => {
| ++
```
Fix #78585.
|
|
Add check_unused_messages in tidy
From https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115728#issuecomment-1715490553
The check is not 100% accurate, I guess it's enough for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Add doc comment to new type
- Restore "only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions" note
- Rename variant with clearer name
|
|
There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second
version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid
uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later
passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid
location, sometimes causing ICEs.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a
valid location.
- Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let
expressions.
|
|
|
|
Specify macro is invalid in certain contexts
Adds a note when a macro is used where it really shouldn't be.
Closes #113766
|
