| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
When token-based attribute handling is implemeneted in #80689,
we will need to access tokens from `HasAttrs` (to perform
cfg-stripping), and we will to access attributes from `HasTokens` (to
construct a `PreexpTokenStream`).
This PR merges the `HasAttrs` and `HasTokens` traits into a new
`AstLike` trait. The previous `HasAttrs` impls from `Vec<Attribute>` and `AttrVec`
are removed - they aren't attribute targets, so the impls never really
made sense.
|
|
Improve suggestion for tuple struct pattern matching errors.
Closes #80174
This change allows numbers to be parsed as field names when pattern matching on structs, which allows us to provide better error messages when tuple structs are matched using a struct pattern.
r? ``@estebank``
|
|
|
|
Along the way, we also implement a handful of diagnostics improvements
and fixes, particularly with respect to the special handling of `||` in
place of `|` and when there are leading verts in function params, which
don't allow top-level or-patterns anyway.
|
|
|
|
This is a pure refactoring split out from #80689.
It represents the most invasive part of that PR, requiring changes in
every caller of `parse_outer_attributes`
In order to eagerly expand `#[cfg]` attributes while preserving the
original `TokenStream`, we need to know the range of tokens that
corresponds to every attribute target. This is accomplished by making
`parse_outer_attributes` return an opaque `AttrWrapper` struct. An
`AttrWrapper` must be converted to a plain `AttrVec` by passing it to
`collect_tokens_trailing_token`. This makes it difficult to accidentally
construct an AST node with attributes without calling `collect_tokens_trailing_token`,
since AST nodes store an `AttrVec`, not an `AttrWrapper`.
As a result, we now call `collect_tokens_trailing_token` for attribute
targets which only support inert attributes, such as generic arguments
and struct fields. Currently, the constructed `LazyTokenStream` is
simply discarded. Future PRs will record the token range corresponding
to the attribute target, allowing those tokens to be removed from an
enclosing `collect_tokens_trailing_token` call if necessary.
|
|
Reverts PR #80830
Fixes taiki-e/pin-project#312
We can have an arbitrary number of `None`-delimited group frames pushed
on the stack due to proc-macro invocations, which can legally be exited.
Attempting to account for this would add a lot of complexity for a tiny
performance gain, so let's just use the original strategy.
|
|
|
|
Improve diagnostics when parsing angle args
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79266 introduced parsing of generic arguments in associated type constraints, this however resulted in possibly very confusing error messages in cases in which closing angle brackets were missing such as in `Vec<(u32, _, _) = vec![]`, which outputs an incorrectly parsed equality constraint error, as noted by `@cynecx.`
This PR tries to provide better error messages in such cases.
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently, when a user uses a struct pattern to pattern match on
a tuple struct, the errors we emit generally suggest adding fields
using their field names, which are numbers. However, numbers are
not valid identifiers, so the suggestions, which use the shorthand
notation, are not valid syntax. This commit changes those errors
to suggest using the actual tuple struct pattern syntax instead,
which is a more actionable suggestion.
|
|
Fixes #81007
Previously, we would fail to collect tokens in the proper place when
only builtin attributes were present. As a result, we would end up with
attribute tokens in the collected `TokenStream`, leading to duplication
when we attempted to prepend the attributes from the AST node.
We now explicitly track when token collection must be performed due to
nomterminal parsing.
|
|
A new `HasTokens` trait is introduced, which is used to move logic from
the callers of `collect_tokens` into the body of `collect_tokens`.
In addition to reducing duplication, this paves the way for PR #80689,
which needs to perform additional logic during token collection.
|
|
ast: Remove some indirection layers from values in key-value attributes
Trying to address some perf regressions from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78837#issuecomment-745380762.
|
|
|
|
We will never need to pop past our starting frame during token
capturing. Using an empty stack allows us to avoid pointless heap
allocations/deallocations.
|
|
Implement edition-based macro :pat feature
This PR does two things:
1. Fixes the perf regression from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80100#issuecomment-750893149
2. Implements `:pat2018` and `:pat2021` matchers, as described by `@joshtriplett` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54883#issuecomment-745509090 behind the feature gate `edition_macro_pat`.
r? `@petrochenkov`
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we try to capture the `Vec<u8>` in `Option<Vec<u8>>`, we'll
need to capture a `>` token which was 'unglued' from a `>>` token.
The processing of unglueing a token for parsing purposes bypasses the
usual capturing infrastructure, so we currently lose the trailing `>`.
As a result, we fall back to the reparsed `TokenStream`, causing us to
lose spans.
This commit makes token capturing keep track of a trailing 'unglued'
token. Note that we don't need to care about unglueing except at the end
of the captured tokens - if we capture both the first and second unglued
tokens, then we'll end up capturing the full 'glued' token, which
already works correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
rustc_parse: fix ConstBlock expr span
The span for a ConstBlock expression should presumably run through the end of the block it contains and not stop at the keyword, just like is done with similar block-containing expression kinds, such as a TryBlock
|
|
We now collect tokens for the underlying node wrapped by `StmtKind`
instead of storing tokens directly in `Stmt`.
`LazyTokenStream` now supports capturing a trailing semicolon after it
is initially constructed. This allows us to avoid refactoring statement
parsing to wrap the parsing of the semicolon in `parse_tokens`.
Attributes on item statements
(e.g. `fn foo() { #[bar] struct MyStruct; }`) are now treated as
item attributes, not statement attributes, which is consistent with how
we handle attributes on other kinds of statements. The feature-gating
code is adjusted so that proc-macro attributes are still allowed on item
statements on stable.
Two built-in macros (`#[global_allocator]` and `#[test]`) needed to be
adjusted to support being passed `Annotatable::Stmt`.
|
|
The optimization conflates empty token streams with unknown token stream, which is at least suspicious, and doesn't affect performance because 0-length token streams are very rare.
|
|
|
|
by using a named struct instead of a closure.
|
|
r=petrochenkov
Suggest that expressions that look like const generic arguments should be enclosed in brackets
I pulled out the changes for const expressions from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/71592 (without the trait object diagnostic changes) and made some small changes; the implementation is `@estebank's.`
We're also going to want to make some changes separately to account for trait objects (they result in poor diagnostics, as is evident from one of the test cases here), such as an adaption of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/72273.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/70753.
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
enclosed in brackets
Co-Authored-By: Esteban Kuber <github@kuber.com.ar>
|
|
Unconditionally capture tokens for attributes.
This allows us to avoid synthesizing tokens in `prepend_attr`, since we
have the original tokens available.
We still need to synthesize tokens when expanding `cfg_attr`,
but this is an unavoidable consequence of the syntax of `cfg_attr` -
the user does not supply the `#` and `[]` tokens that a `cfg_attr`
expands to.
This is based on PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77250 - this PR exposes a bug in the current `collect_tokens` implementation, which is fixed by the rewrite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rewrite `collect_tokens` implementations to use a flattened buffer
Instead of trying to collect tokens at each depth, we 'flatten' the
stream as we go allong, pushing open/close delimiters to our buffer
just like regular tokens. One capturing is complete, we reconstruct a
nested `TokenTree::Delimited` structure, producing a normal
`TokenStream`.
The reconstructed `TokenStream` is not created immediately - instead, it is
produced on-demand by a closure (wrapped in a new `LazyTokenStream` type). This
closure stores a clone of the original `TokenCursor`, plus a record of the
number of calls to `next()/next_desugared()`. This is sufficient to reconstruct
the tokenstream seen by the callback without storing any additional state. If
the tokenstream is never used (e.g. when a captured `macro_rules!` argument is
never passed to a proc macro), we never actually create a `TokenStream`.
This implementation has a number of advantages over the previous one:
* It is significantly simpler, with no edge cases around capturing the
start/end of a delimited group.
* It can be easily extended to allow replacing tokens an an arbitrary
'depth' by just using `Vec::splice` at the proper position. This is
important for PR #76130, which requires us to track information about
attributes along with tokens.
* The lazy approach to `TokenStream` construction allows us to easily
parse an AST struct, and then decide after the fact whether we need a
`TokenStream`. This will be useful when we start collecting tokens for
`Attribute` - we can discard the `LazyTokenStream` if the parsed
attribute doesn't need tokens (e.g. is a builtin attribute).
The performance impact seems to be neglibile (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77250#issuecomment-703960604). There is a
small slowdown on a few benchmarks, but it only rises above 1% for incremental
builds, where it represents a larger fraction of the much smaller instruction
count. There a ~1% speedup on a few other incremental benchmarks - my guess is
that the speedups and slowdowns will usually cancel out in practice.
|
|
Inline const followups
r? @petrochenkov
Follow ups of #77124
|
|
|
|
Instead of trying to collect tokens at each depth, we 'flatten' the
stream as we go allong, pushing open/close delimiters to our buffer
just like regular tokens. One capturing is complete, we reconstruct a
nested `TokenTree::Delimited` structure, producing a normal
`TokenStream`.
The reconstructed `TokenStream` is not created immediately - instead, it is
produced on-demand by a closure (wrapped in a new `LazyTokenStream` type). This
closure stores a clone of the original `TokenCursor`, plus a record of the
number of calls to `next()/next_desugared()`. This is sufficient to reconstruct
the tokenstream seen by the callback without storing any additional state. If
the tokenstream is never used (e.g. when a captured `macro_rules!` argument is
never passed to a proc macro), we never actually create a `TokenStream`.
This implementation has a number of advantages over the previous one:
* It is significantly simpler, with no edge cases around capturing the
start/end of a delimited group.
* It can be easily extended to allow replacing tokens an an arbitrary
'depth' by just using `Vec::splice` at the proper position. This is
important for PR #76130, which requires us to track information about
attributes along with tokens.
* The lazy approach to `TokenStream` construction allows us to easily
parse an AST struct, and then decide after the fact whether we need a
`TokenStream`. This will be useful when we start collecting tokens for
`Attribute` - we can discard the `LazyTokenStream` if the parsed
attribute doesn't need tokens (e.g. is a builtin attribute).
The performance impact seems to be neglibile (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77250#issuecomment-703960604). There is a
small slowdown on a few benchmarks, but it only rises above 1% for incremental
builds, where it represents a larger fraction of the much smaller instruction
count. There a ~1% speedup on a few other incremental benchmarks - my guess is
that the speedups and slowdowns will usually cancel out in practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This approach lives exclusively in the parser, so struct expr bodies
that are syntactically correct on their own but are otherwise incorrect
will still emit confusing errors, like in the following case:
```rust
fn foo() -> Foo {
bar: Vec::new()
}
```
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `bar` in this scope
--> src/file.rs:5:5
|
5 | bar: Vec::new()
| ^^^ expecting a type here because of type ascription
error[E0214]: parenthesized type parameters may only be used with a `Fn` trait
--> src/file.rs:5:15
|
5 | bar: Vec::new()
| ^^^^^ only `Fn` traits may use parentheses
error[E0107]: wrong number of type arguments: expected 1, found 0
--> src/file.rs:5:10
|
5 | bar: Vec::new()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected 1 type argument
```
If that field had a trailing comma, that would be a parse error and it
would trigger the new, more targetted, error:
```
error: struct literal body without path
--> file.rs:4:17
|
4 | fn foo() -> Foo {
| _________________^
5 | | bar: Vec::new(),
6 | | }
| |_^
|
help: you might have forgotten to add the struct literal inside the block
|
4 | fn foo() -> Foo { Path {
5 | bar: Vec::new(),
6 | } }
|
```
Partially address last part of #34255.
|
|
|
|
case
|
|
A `Visibility` does not have outer attributes, so we only capture tokens
when parsing a `macro_rules!` matcher
|
|
To match better naming from proc-macro
|
|
Improve recovery on malformed format call
The token following a format expression should be a comma. However, when it is replaced with a similar token (such as a dot), then the corresponding error is emitted, but the token is treated as a comma, and the parsing step continues.
r? @petrochenkov
|
|
If a comma in a format call is replaced with a similar token, then we
emit an error and continue parsing, instead of stopping at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
