| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Remove `NtPat`, `NtMeta`, and `NtPath`
Another part of #124141.
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
|
|
Note: there was an existing code path involving `Interpolated` in
`MetaItem::from_tokens` that was dead. This commit transfers that to the
new form, but puts an `unreachable!` call inside it.
|
|
The one notable test change is `tests/ui/macros/trace_faulty_macros.rs`.
This commit removes the complicated `Interpolated` handling in
`expected_expression_found` that results in a longer error message. But
I think the new, shorter message is actually an improvement.
The original complaint was in #71039, when the error message started
with "error: expected expression, found `1 + 1`". That was confusing
because `1 + 1` is an expression. Other than that, the reporter said
"the whole error message is not too bad if you ignore the first line".
Subsequently, extra complexity and wording was added to the error
message. But I don't think the extra wording actually helps all that
much. In particular, it still says of the `1+1` that "this is expected
to be expression". This repeats the problem from the original complaint!
This commit removes the extra complexity, reverting to a simpler error
message. This is primarily because the traversal is a pain without
`Interpolated` tokens. Nonetheless, I think the error message is
*improved*. It now starts with "expected expression, found `pat`
metavariable", which is much clearer and the real problem. It also
doesn't say anything specific about `1+1`, which is good, because the
`1+1` isn't really relevant to the error -- it's the `$e:pat` that's
important.
|
|
To match `ExprKind::Cast`, and because a semantic name makes more sense
here than a syntactic name.
|
|
It makes `AssocOp` more similar to `ExprKind` and makes things a little
simpler. And the semantic names make more sense here than the syntactic
names.
|
|
It mirrors `ExprKind::Binary`, and contains a `BinOpKind`. This makes
`AssocOp` more like `ExprKind`. Note that the variants removed from
`AssocOp` are all named differently to `BinOpToken`, e.g. `Multiply`
instead of `Mul`, so that's an inconsistency removed.
The commit adds `precedence` and `fixity` methods to `BinOpKind`, and
calls them from the corresponding methods in `AssocOp`. This avoids the
need to create an `AssocOp` from a `BinOpKind` in a bunch of places, and
`AssocOp::from_ast_binop` is removed.
`AssocOp::to_ast_binop` is also no longer needed.
Overall things are shorter and nicer.
|
|
`AssocOp::AssignOp` contains a `BinOpToken`. `ExprKind::AssignOp`
contains a `BinOpKind`. Given that `AssocOp` is basically a cut-down
version of `ExprKind`, it makes sense to make `AssocOp` more like
`ExprKind`. Especially given that `AssocOp` and `BinOpKind` use semantic
operation names (e.g. `Mul`, `Div`), but `BinOpToken` uses syntactic
names (e.g. `Star`, `Slash`).
This results in more concise code, and removes the need for various
conversions. (Note that the removed functions `hirbinop2assignop` and
`astbinop2assignop` are semantically identical, because `hir::BinOp` is
just a synonum for `ast::BinOp`!)
The only downside to this is that it allows the possibility of some
nonsensical combinations, such as `AssocOp::AssignOp(BinOpKind::Lt)`.
But `ExprKind::AssignOp` already has that problem. The problem can be
fixed for both types in the future with some effort, by introducing an
`AssignOpKind` type.
|
|
Fix "missing match arm body" suggestion involving `!`
Include the match arm guard in the gated span, so that the suggestion to add a body is correct instead of inserting the body before the guard.
Make the suggestion verbose.
```
error: `match` arm with no body
--> $DIR/feature-gate-never_patterns.rs:43:9
|
LL | Some(_) if false,
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: add a body after the pattern
|
LL | Some(_) if false => { todo!() },
| ++++++++++++++
```
r? `@compiler-errors`
|
|
|
|
Include the match arm guard in the gated span, so that the suggestion to add a body is correct instead of inserting the body before the guard.
Make the suggestion verbose.
```
error: `match` arm with no body
--> $DIR/feature-gate-never_patterns.rs:43:9
|
LL | Some(_) if false,
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: add a body after the pattern
|
LL | Some(_) if false => { todo!() },
| ++++++++++++++
```
|
|
Remove `NtVis` and `NtTy`
The next part of #124141. The first actual remove of `Nonterminal` variants. `NtVis` is a simple case that doesn't get much use, but `NtTy` is more complex.
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
|
|
Notes about tests:
- tests/ui/parser/macro/trait-object-macro-matcher.rs: the syntax error
is duplicated, because it occurs now when parsing the decl macro
input, and also when parsing the expanded decl macro. But this won't
show up for normal users due to error de-duplication.
- tests/ui/associated-consts/issue-93835.rs: similar, plus there are
some additional errors about this very broken code.
- The changes to metavariable descriptions in #132629 are now visible in
error message for several tests.
|
|
We now use invisible delimiters for expanded `vis` fragments, instead of
`Token::Interpolated`.
|
|
Tweak "expected ident" parse error to avoid talking about doc comments
When encountering a doc comment without an identifier after, we'd unconditionally state "this doc comment doesn't document anything", swallowing the *actual* error which is that the thing *after* the doc comment wasn't expected. Added a check that the found token is something that "conceptually" closes the previous item before emitting that error, otherwise just complain about the missing identifier.
In both of the following cases, the syntax error follows a doc comment:
```
error: expected identifier, found keyword `Self`
--> $DIR/doc-before-bad-variant.rs:4:5
|
LL | enum TestEnum {
| -------- while parsing this enum
...
LL | Self,
| ^^^^ expected identifier, found keyword
|
= help: enum variants can be `Variant`, `Variant = <integer>`, `Variant(Type, ..., TypeN)` or `Variant { fields: Types }`
```
```
error: expected identifier, found `<`
--> $DIR/doc-before-syntax-error.rs:2:1
|
LL | <>
| ^ expected identifier
```
Fix #71982.
|
|
When encountering a doc comment without an identifier after, we'd unconditionally state "this doc comment doesn't document anything", swallowing the *actual* error which is that the thing *after* the doc comment wasn't expected. Added a check that the found token is something that "conceptually" closes the previous item before emitting that error, otherwise just complain about the missing identifier.
In both of the following cases, the syntax error follows a doc comment:
```
error: expected identifier, found keyword `Self`
--> $DIR/doc-before-bad-variant.rs:4:5
|
LL | enum TestEnum {
| -------- while parsing this enum
...
LL | Self,
| ^^^^ expected identifier, found keyword
|
= help: enum variants can be `Variant`, `Variant = <integer>`, `Variant(Type, ..., TypeN)` or `Variant { fields: Types }`
```
```
error: expected identifier, found `<`
--> $DIR/doc-before-syntax-error.rs:2:1
|
LL | <>
| ^ expected identifier
```
Fix #71982.
|
|
Because of an ambiguity with const closures, the parser needs to ensure
that for a const item, the `const` keyword isn't followed by a `move` or
`static` keyword, as that would indicate a const closure:
```rust
fn main() {
const move // ...
}
```
This check did not take raw identifiers into account, therefore being
unable to distinguish between `const move` and `const r#move`. The
latter is obviously not a const closure, so it should be allowed as a
const item.
This fixes the check in the parser to only treat `const ...` as a const
closure if it's followed by the *proper keyword*, and not a raw
identifier.
Additionally, this adds a large test that tests for all raw identifiers in
all kinds of positions, including `const`, to prevent issues like this
one from occurring again.
|
|
r=estebank
Try to recover from path sep error in type parsing
Fixes #129273
Error using `:` in the argument list may mess up the parser.
case `tests/ui/suggestions/struct-field-type-including-single-colon` also changed, seems it's the same meaning, should be OK.
r? `@estebank`
|
|
Do not allow attributes on struct field rest patterns
Fixes #81282.
This removes support for attributes on struct field rest patterns (the `..` bit) from the parser. Previously any attributes were being parsed but dropped from the AST, so didn't work and were deleted by rustfmt.
This needs an equivalent change to the reference but I wanted to see how this PR is received first.
The error message it produces isn't great, however it does match the error you get if you try to add attributes to .. in struct expressions atm, although I can understand wanting to do better given this was previously accepted. I think I could move attribute parsing back up to where it was and then emit a specific new error for this case, however I might need some guidance as this is the first time I've messed around inside the compiler.
While this is technically breaking I don't think it's much of an issue: attributes in this position don't currently do anything and rustfmt outright deletes them, meaning it's incredibly unlikely to affect anyone. I have already made the equivalent change to *add* support for attributes (mostly) but the conversation in the linked issue suggested it would be more reasonable to just remove them (and pointed out it's much easier to add support later if we realise we need them).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tree-wide: parallel: Fully removed all `Lrc`, replaced with `Arc`
tree-wide: parallel: Fully removed all `Lrc`, replaced with `Arc`
This is continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132282 .
I'm pretty sure I did everything right. In particular, I searched all occurrences of `Lrc` in submodules and made sure that they don't need replacement.
There are other possibilities, through.
We can define `enum Lrc<T> { Rc(Rc<T>), Arc(Arc<T>) }`. Or we can make `Lrc` a union and on every clone we can read from special thread-local variable. Or we can add a generic parameter to `Lrc` and, yes, this parameter will be everywhere across all codebase.
So, if you think we should take some alternative approach, then don't merge this PR. But if it is decided to stick with `Arc`, then, please, merge.
cc "Parallel Rustc Front-end" ( https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113349 )
r? SparrowLii
`@rustbot` label WG-compiler-parallel
|
|
This has now been approved as a language feature and no longer needs
a `rustc_` prefix.
Also change the `contracts` feature to be marked as incomplete and
`contracts_internals` as internal.
|
|
The extended syntax for function signature that includes contract clauses
should never be user exposed versus the interface we want to ship
externally eventually.
|
|
lang items
includes post-developed commit: do not suggest internal-only keywords as corrections to parse failures.
includes post-developed commit: removed tabs that creeped in into rustfmt tool source code.
includes post-developed commit, placating rustfmt self dogfooding.
includes post-developed commit: add backquotes to prevent markdown checking from trying to treat an attr as a markdown hyperlink/
includes post-developed commit: fix lowering to keep contracts from being erroneously inherited by nested bodies (like closures).
Rebase Conflicts:
- compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs
- compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/item.rs
- compiler/rustc_span/src/hygiene.rs
Remove contracts keywords from diagnostic messages
|
|
This removes support for attributes on struct field rest patterns (the `..`) from the parser.
Previously they were being parsed but dropped from the AST, so didn't work and were deleted by rustfmt.
|
|
|
|
simplify `similar_tokens` from `Option<Vec<_>>` to `&[_]`
All uses immediately invoke contains, so maybe a further simplification is possible.
|
|
Trim extra whitespace in fn ptr suggestion span
Trim extra whitespace when suggesting removal of invalid qualifiers when parsing function pointer type.
Fixes: #133083
---
I made a comment about the format of the diagnostic error message in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133083#issuecomment-2480047875. I think the `.label` may be a little redundant if the diagnostic only highlights the bad qualifier instead of the entire `TyKind::BareFn` span. If it makes sense, I can include it in this PR.
|
|
Trim extra whitespace when suggesting removal of invalid qualifiers when
parsing function pointer type.
Fixes: #133083
Signed-off-by: Tyrone Wu <wudevelops@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
formatting traits
|
|
|
|
|
|
The size of this struct depends on the alignment of `u128`, for example
powerpc64le and s390x have align-8 and end up with only 280 bytes. Our
64-bit tier-1 arches are the same though, so let's just assert on those.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Master bootstrap update
Part of the release process.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
|
|
Remove some unnecessary `.into()` calls
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix typos
Hello, I fix some typos in docs and comments. Thank you very much.
|
|
Signed-off-by: calciumbe <192480234+calciumbe@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
|
|
Fix parenthesization of chained comparisons by pretty-printer
Example:
```rust
macro_rules! repro {
() => {
1 < 2
};
}
fn main() {
let _ = repro!() == false;
}
```
Previously `-Zunpretty=expanded` would pretty-print this syntactically invalid output: `fn main() { let _ = 1 < 2 == false; }`
```console
error: comparison operators cannot be chained
--> <anon>:8:23
|
8 | fn main() { let _ = 1 < 2 == false; }
| ^ ^^
|
help: parenthesize the comparison
|
8 | fn main() { let _ = (1 < 2) == false; }
| + +
```
With the fix, it will print `fn main() { let _ = (1 < 2) == false; }`.
Making `-Zunpretty=expanded` consistently produce syntactically valid Rust output is important because that is what makes it possible for `cargo expand` to format and perform filtering on the expanded code.
## Review notes
According to `rg '\.fixity\(\)' compiler/` the `fixity` function is called only 3 places:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/13170cd787cb733ed24842ee825bcbd98dc01476/compiler/rustc_ast_pretty/src/pprust/state/expr.rs#L283-L287
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/13170cd787cb733ed24842ee825bcbd98dc01476/compiler/rustc_hir_pretty/src/lib.rs#L1295-L1299
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/13170cd787cb733ed24842ee825bcbd98dc01476/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L282-L289
The 2 pretty printers definitely want to treat comparisons using `Fixity::None`. That's the whole bug being fixed. Meanwhile, the parser's `Fixity::None` codepath is previously unreachable as indicated by the comment, so as long as `Fixity::None` here behaves exactly the way that `Fixity::Left` used to behave, you can tell that this PR definitely does not constitute any behavior change for the parser.
My guess for why comparison operators were set to `Fixity::Left` instead of `Fixity::None` is that it's a very old workaround for giving a good chained comparisons diagnostic (like what I pasted above). Nowadays that is handled by a different dedicated codepath.
|
|
Detect missing `.` in method chain in `let` bindings and statements
On parse errors where an ident is found where one wasn't expected, see if the next elements might have been meant as method call or field access.
```
error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator, found `map`
--> $DIR/missing-dot-on-statement-expression.rs:7:29
|
LL | let _ = [1, 2, 3].iter()map(|x| x);
| ^^^ expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator
|
help: you might have meant to write a method call
|
LL | let _ = [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|x| x);
| +
```
|
