| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
This lets us compare a `Token` with a `TokenKind`. It's used a lot, but
can be used even more, avoiding the need for some `.kind` uses.
|
|
|
|
r=compiler-errors
Fix bug in `Parser::look_ahead`.
The special case was failing to handle invisible delimiters on one path.
Fixes (but doesn't close until beta backported) #128895.
r? `@davidtwco`
|
|
Use `assert_matches` around the compiler more
It's a useful assertion, especially since it actually prints out the LHS.
|
|
The special case was failing to handle invisible delimiters on one path.
Fixes #128895.
|
|
|
|
Use more slice patterns inside the compiler
Nothing super noteworthy. Just replacing the common 'fragile' pattern of "length check followed by indexing or unwrap" with slice patterns for legibility and 'robustness'.
r? ghost
|
|
codepoint boundaries
Previously we would try to issue a suggestion for `let x <op>= 1`, i.e.
a compound assignment within a `let` binding, to remove the `<op>`. The
suggestion code unfortunately incorrectly assumed that the `<op>` is an
exactly-1-byte ASCII character, but this assumption is incorrect because
we also recover Unicode-confusables like `➖=` as `-=`. In this example,
the suggestion code used a `+ BytePos(1)` to calculate the span of the
`<op>` codepoint that looks like `-` but the mult-byte Unicode
look-alike would cause the suggested removal span to be inside a
multi-byte codepoint boundary, triggering a codepoint boundary
assertion.
Issue: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128845>
|
|
|
|
r=compiler-errors
Stabilize unsafe extern blocks (RFC 3484)
# Stabilization report
## Summary
This is a tracking issue for the RFC 3484: Unsafe Extern Blocks
We are stabilizing `#![feature(unsafe_extern_blocks)]`, as described in [Unsafe Extern Blocks RFC 3484](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3484). This feature makes explicit that declaring an extern block is unsafe. Starting in Rust 2024, all extern blocks must be marked as unsafe. In all editions, items within unsafe extern blocks may be marked as safe to use.
RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3484
Tracking issue: #123743
## What is stabilized
### Summary of stabilization
We now need extern blocks to be marked as unsafe and items inside can also have safety modifiers (unsafe or safe), by default items with no modifiers are unsafe to offer easy migration without surprising results.
```rust
unsafe extern {
// sqrt (from libm) may be called with any `f64`
pub safe fn sqrt(x: f64) -> f64;
// strlen (from libc) requires a valid pointer,
// so we mark it as being an unsafe fn
pub unsafe fn strlen(p: *const c_char) -> usize;
// this function doesn't say safe or unsafe, so it defaults to unsafe
pub fn free(p: *mut core::ffi::c_void);
pub safe static IMPORTANT_BYTES: [u8; 256];
pub safe static LINES: SyncUnsafeCell<i32>;
}
```
## Tests
The relevant tests are in `tests/ui/rust-2024/unsafe-extern-blocks`.
## History
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124482
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124455
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125077
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125522
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126738
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126749
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126755
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126757
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126758
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126756
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126973
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127535
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/pull/6204
## Unresolved questions
I am not aware of any unresolved questions.
|
|
Still more `cfg` cleanups
Found while looking closely at `cfg`/`cfg_attr` processing code.
r? `````````@petrochenkov`````````
|
|
Fix removed `box_syntax` diagnostic if source isn't available
Fix #128442
|
|
|
|
r=estebank,traviscross
More unsafe attr verification
This code denies unsafe on attributes such as `#[test]` and `#[ignore]`, while also changing the `MetaItem` parsing so `unsafe` in args like `#[allow(unsafe(dead_code))]` is not accidentally allowed.
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123757
|
|
When collecting tokens there are two kinds of range:
- a range relative to the parser's full token stream (which we get when
we are parsing);
- a range relative to a single AST node's token stream (which we use
within `LazyAttrTokenStreamImpl` when replacing tokens).
These are currently both represented with `Range<u32>` and it's easy to
mix them up -- until now I hadn't properly understood the difference.
This commit introduces `ParserRange` and `NodeRange` to distinguish
them. This also requires splitting `ReplaceRange` in two, giving the new
types `ParserReplacement` and `NodeReplacement`. (These latter two names
reduce the overloading of the word "range".)
The commit also rewrites some comments to be clearer.
The end result is a little more verbose, but much clearer.
|
|
|
|
It can be done more concisely.
|
|
r=eholk,compiler-errors
[RFC] mbe: consider the `_` in 2024 an expression
This commit is adding the possibility to parse the `_` as an expression inside the esition 2024.
Link: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/404510-wg-macros/topic/supporting.20.60_.60.20expressions
Issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123742
r? `@eholk`
|
|
Co-authored-by: Eric Holk <eric@theincredibleholk.org>
|
|
This commit is adding the possibility to parse the `_` as
an expression inside the esition 2024.
Link: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/404510-wg-macros/topic/supporting.20.60_.60.20expressions
Co-authored-by: Eric Holk <eric@theincredibleholk.org>
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
|
|
`parse_expr_assoc_with` has an awkward structure -- sometimes the lhs is
already parsed. This commit splits the post-lhs part into a new method
`parse_expr_assoc_rest_with`, which makes everything shorter and
simpler.
|
|
It has a single use. This makes the `let` handling case in
`parse_stmt_without_recovery` more similar to the statement path and
statement expression cases.
|
|
This makes it possible for the `unsafe(...)` syntax to only be
valid at the top level, and the `NestedMetaItem`s will automatically
reject `unsafe(...)`.
|
|
|
|
The previous commit updated `rustfmt.toml` appropriately. This commit is
the outcome of running `x fmt --all` with the new formatting options.
|
|
improve error message when `global_asm!` uses `asm!` options
specifically, what was
error: expected one of `)`, `att_syntax`, or `raw`, found `preserves_flags`
--> $DIR/bad-options.rs:45:25
|
LL | global_asm!("", options(preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected one of `)`, `att_syntax`, or `raw`
is now
error: the `preserves_flags` option cannot be used with `global_asm!`
--> $DIR/bad-options.rs:45:25
|
LL | global_asm!("", options(preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the `preserves_flags` option is not meaningful for global-scoped inline assembly
mirroring the phrasing of the [reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/inline-assembly.html#options).
This is also a bit of a refactor for a future `naked_asm!` macro (for use in `#[naked]` functions). Currently this sort of error can come up when switching from inline to global asm, or when a user just isn't that experienced with assembly. With `naked_asm!` added to the mix hitting this error is more likely.
|
|
Improve `extern "<abi>" unsafe fn()` error message
These errors were already reported in #87217, and fixed by #87235 but missed the case of an explicit ABI.
This PR does not cover multiple keywords like `extern "C" pub const unsafe fn()`, but I don't know what a good way to cover this would be. It also seems rarer than `extern "C" unsafe` which I saw happen a few times in workshops.
|
|
Remove unnecessary range replacements
This PR removes an unnecessary range replacement in `collect_tokens_trailing_token`, and does a couple of other small cleanups.
r? ````@petrochenkov````
|
|
Refactor complex conditions in `collect_tokens_trailing_token`
More readability improvements for this complicated function.
r? ````@petrochenkov````
|
|
This was handled correctly already for `extern unsafe fn()`.
Co-authored-by: Folkert <folkert@folkertdev.nl>
|
|
|
|
A fully imperative style is easier to read than a half-iterator,
half-imperative style. Also, rename `inner_attr` as `attr` because it
might be an outer attribute.
|
|
Imagine you have replace ranges (2..20,X) and (5..15,Y), and these tokens:
```
a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x
```
If we replace (5..15,Y) first, then (2..20,X) we get this sequence
```
a,b,c,d,e,Y,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x
a,b,X,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,u,v,w,x
```
which is what we want.
If we do it in the other order, we get this:
```
a,b,X,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w,x
a,b,X,_,_,Y,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,_,u,v,w,x
```
which is wrong. So it's true that we need the `.rev()` but the comment
is wrong about why.
|
|
The current code is this:
```
self.capture_state.replace_ranges.push((start_pos..end_pos, Some(target)));
self.capture_state.replace_ranges.extend(inner_attr_replace_ranges);
```
What's not obvious is that every range in `inner_attr_replace_ranges`
must be a strict sub-range of `start_pos..end_pos`. Which means, in
`LazyAttrTokenStreamImpl::to_attr_token_stream`, they will be done
first, and then the `start_pos..end_pos` replacement will just overwrite
them. So they aren't needed.
|
|
I have always found `is_complete` an unhelpful name. The new name (and
inverted sense) fits in better with the conditions at its call sites.
|
|
And make it non-`pub`.
|
|
It has a single call site. This change makes the two `needs_collect`
conditions more similar to each other, and therefore easier to
understand.
|
|
This has been bugging me for a while. I find complex "if any of these
are true" conditions easier to think about than complex "if all of these
are true" conditions, because you can stop as soon as one is true.
|
|
|
|
fixes #128042
|
|
Reorder trait bound modifiers *after* `for<...>` binder in trait bounds
This PR suggests changing the grammar of trait bounds from:
```
[CONSTNESS] [ASYNCNESS] [?] [BINDER] [TRAIT_PATH]
const async ? for<'a> Sized
```
to
```
([BINDER] [CONSTNESS] [ASYNCNESS] | [?]) [TRAIT_PATH]
```
i.e., either
```
? Sized
```
or
```
for<'a> const async Sized
```
(but not both)
### Why?
I think it's strange that the binder applies "more tightly" than the `?` trait polarity. This becomes even weirder when considering that we (or at least, I) want to have `async` trait bounds expressed like:
```
where T: for<'a> async Fn(&'a ()) -> i32,
```
and not:
```
where T: async for<'a> Fn(&'a ()) -> i32,
```
### Fallout
No crates on crater use this syntax, presumably because it's literally useless. This will require modifying the reference grammar, though.
### Alternatives
If this is not desirable, then we can alternatively keep parsing `for<'a>` after the `?` but deprecate it with either an FCW (or an immediate hard error), and begin parsing `for<'a>` *before* the `?`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #127350 (Parser: Suggest Placing the Return Type After Function Parameters)
- #127621 (Rewrite and rename `issue-22131` and `issue-26006` `run-make` tests to rmake)
- #127662 (When finding item gated behind a `cfg` flag, point at it)
- #127903 (`force_collect` improvements)
- #127932 (rustdoc: fix `current` class on sidebar modnav)
- #127943 (Don't allow unsafe statics outside of extern blocks)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
`force_collect` improvements
Yet more cleanups relating to `cfg_attr` processing.
r? ````@petrochenkov````
|
|
Parser: Suggest Placing the Return Type After Function Parameters
Fixes #126311
This PR suggests placing the return type after the function parameters when it's misplaced after a `where` clause.
This also tangentially improves diagnostics for cases like [this](https://github.com/veera-sivarajan/rust/blob/86d6f1312a77997ef994240e716288d61a343a6d/tests/ui/parser/issues/misplaced-return-type-without-where-issue-126311.rs#L1C1-L1C28) and adds doc comments for `parser::AllowPlus`.
|
|
Adding details, clarifying lots of little things, etc. In particular,
the commit adds details of an example. I find this very helpful, because
it's taken me a long time to understand how this code works.
|
|
Currently in `collect_tokens_trailing_token`, `start_pos` and `end_pos`
are 1-indexed by `replace_ranges` is 0-indexed, which is really
confusing. Making them both 0-indexed makes debugging much easier.
|
