| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
`IntoDiagnostic` defaults to `ErrorGuaranteed`, because errors are the
most common diagnostic level. It makes sense to do likewise for the
closely-related (and much more widely used) `DiagnosticBuilder` type,
letting us write `DiagnosticBuilder<'a, ErrorGuaranteed>` as just
`DiagnosticBuilder<'a>`. This cuts over 200 lines of code due to many
multi-line things becoming single line things.
|
|
Fix `EmissionGuarantee`
There are some problems with the `DiagCtxt` API related to `EmissionGuarantee`. This PR fixes them.
r? `@compiler-errors`
|
|
Add check for possible CStr literals in pre-2021
Fixes [#118654](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118654)
Adds information to errors caused by possible CStr literals in pre-2021.
The lexer separates `c"str"` into two tokens if the edition is less than 2021, which later causes an error when parsing. This error now has a more helpful message that directs them to information about editions. However, the user might also have written `c "str"` in a later edition, so to not confuse people who _are_ using a recent edition, I also added a note about whitespace.
We could probably figure out exactly which scenario has been encountered by examining spans and editions, but I figured it would be better not to overcomplicate the creation of the error too much.
This is my first code PR and I tried to follow existing conventions as much as possible, but I probably missed something, so let me know!
|
|
|
|
This commit replaces this pattern:
```
err.into_diagnostic(dcx)
```
with this pattern:
```
dcx.create_err(err)
```
in a lot of places.
It's a little shorter, makes the error level explicit, avoids some
`IntoDiagnostic` imports, and is a necessary prerequisite for the next
commit which will add a `level` arg to `into_diagnostic`.
This requires adding `track_caller` on `create_err` to avoid mucking up
the output of `tests/ui/track-diagnostics/track4.rs`. It probably should
have been there already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To `msg: impl Into<DiagnosticMessage>`, like all the other diagnostics.
For consistency.
|
|
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`
|
|
Tweak unclosed generics errors
Remove unnecessary span label for parse errors that already have a suggestion.
Provide structured suggestion to close generics in more cases.
|
|
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 `=>`.
|
|
Fix parser ICE from attrs
Fixes #118531,
Fixes #118530.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove unnecessary span label for parse errors that already have a
suggestion.
Provide structured suggestion to close generics in more cases.
|
|
Use the same approach used for match arm patterns.
|
|
|
|
`x clippy compiler -Aclippy::all -Wclippy::needless_borrow --fix`.
Then I had to remove a few unnecessary parens and muts that were exposed
now.
|
|
Handle attempts to have multiple `cfg`d tail expressions
When encountering code that seems like it might be trying to have multiple tail expressions depending on `cfg` information, suggest alternatives that will success to parse.
```rust
fn foo() -> String {
#[cfg(feature = "validation")]
[1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>()
#[cfg(not(feature = "validation"))]
String::new()
}
```
```
error: expected `;`, found `#`
--> $DIR/multiple-tail-expr-behind-cfg.rs:5:64
|
LL | #[cfg(feature = "validation")]
| ------------------------------ only `;` terminated statements or tail expressions are allowed after this attribute
LL | [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>()
| ^ expected `;` here
LL | #[cfg(not(feature = "validation"))]
| - unexpected token
|
help: add `;` here
|
LL | [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>();
| +
help: alternatively, consider surrounding the expression with a block
|
LL | { [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>() }
| + +
help: it seems like you are trying to provide different expressions depending on `cfg`, consider using `if cfg!(..)`
|
LL ~ if cfg!(feature = "validation") {
LL ~ [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>()
LL ~ } else if cfg!(not(feature = "validation")) {
LL ~ String::new()
LL + }
|
```
Fix #106020.
r? `@oli-obk`
|
|
When encountering code that seems like it might be trying to have
multiple tail expressions depending on `cfg` information, suggest
alternatives that will success to parse.
```rust
fn foo() -> String {
#[cfg(feature = "validation")]
[1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>()
#[cfg(not(feature = "validation"))]
String::new()
}
```
```
error: expected `;`, found `#`
--> $DIR/multiple-tail-expr-behind-cfg.rs:5:64
|
LL | #[cfg(feature = "validation")]
| ------------------------------ only `;` terminated statements or tail expressions are allowed after this attribute
LL | [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>()
| ^ expected `;` here
LL | #[cfg(not(feature = "validation"))]
| - unexpected token
|
help: add `;` here
|
LL | [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>();
| +
help: alternatively, consider surrounding the expression with a block
|
LL | { [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>() }
| + +
help: it seems like you are trying to provide different expressions depending on `cfg`, consider using `if cfg!(..)`
|
LL ~ if cfg!(feature = "validation") {
LL ~ [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>()
LL ~ } else if cfg!(not(feature = "validation")) {
LL ~ String::new()
LL + }
|
```
Fix #106020.
|
|
Partially address #71039.
|
|
|
|
Fix #116252.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The new place makes more sense and covers more cases beyond individual
statements.
```
error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator, found doc comment `//!foo
--> $DIR/doc-comment-in-stmt.rs:25:22
|
LL | let y = x.max(1) //!foo
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator
|
help: add a space before `!` to write a regular comment
|
LL | let y = x.max(1) // !foo
| +
```
Fix #65329.
|
|
Format all the let-chains in compiler crates
Since rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 has landed, soon we will have support for formatting let-chains (as soon as rustfmt syncs and beta gets bumped).
This PR applies the changes [from master rustfmt to rust-lang/rust eagerly](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/122651-general/topic/out.20formatting.20of.20prs/near/374997516), so that the next beta bump does not have to deal with a 200+ file diff and can remain concerned with other things like `cfg(bootstrap)` -- #113637 was a pain to land, for example, because of let-else.
I will also add this commit to the ignore list after it has landed.
The commands that were run -- I'm not great at bash-foo, but this applies rustfmt to every compiler crate, and then reverts the two crates that should probably be formatted out-of-tree.
```
~/rustfmt $ ls -1d ~/rust/compiler/* | xargs -I@ cargo run --bin rustfmt -- `@/src/lib.rs` --config-path ~/rust --edition=2021 # format all of the compiler crates
~/rust $ git checkout HEAD -- compiler/rustc_codegen_{gcc,cranelift} # revert changes to cg-gcc and cg-clif
```
cc `@rust-lang/rustfmt`
r? `@WaffleLapkin` or `@Nilstrieb` who said they may be able to review this purely mechanical PR :>
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` and `@petrochenkov,` who had some thoughts on the order of operations with big formatting changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95262#issue-1178993801. I think the situation has changed since then, given that let-chains support exists on master rustfmt now, and I'm fairly confident that this formatting PR should land even if *bootstrap* rustfmt doesn't yet format let-chains in order to lessen the burden of the next beta bump.
|
|
|
|
When parsing a closure without a body that is surrounded by a block,
suggest moving the opening brace after the closure head.
Fix #116608.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specify macro is invalid in certain contexts
Adds a note when a macro is used where it really shouldn't be.
Closes #113766
|
|
Suggests turbofish in patterns
Fixes #114112
r? ```@estebank```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
