| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
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`
|
|
Rename kw::Invalid -> kw::Empty
See https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/Is.20there.20a.20symbol.20for.20the.20empty.20string.3F/near/220054471
for context.
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
|
|
See https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/Is.20there.20a.20symbol.20for.20the.20empty.20string.3F/near/220054471
for context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
use matches!() macro in more places
|
|
|
|
Implemented a compiler diagnostic for move async mistake
Fixes #79694
First time contributing, so I hope I'm doing everything right.
(If not, please correct me!)
This code performs a check when a move capture clause is parsed. The check is to detect if the user has reversed the async move keywords and to provide a diagnostic with a suggestion to fix it.
Checked code:
```rust
fn main() {
move async { };
}
```
Previous output:
```txt
PS C:\Repos\move_async_test> cargo build
Compiling move_async_test v0.1.0 (C:\Repos\move_async_test)
error: expected one of `|` or `||`, found keyword `async`
--> src\main.rs:2:10
|
2 | move async { };
| ^^^^^ expected one of `|` or `||`
error: aborting due to previous error
error: could not compile `move_async_test`
```
New output:
```txt
PS C:\Repos\move_async_test> cargo +dev build
Compiling move_async_test v0.1.0 (C:\Repos\move_async_test)
error: the order of `move` and `async` is incorrect
--> src\main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let _ = move async { };
| ^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: try switching the order
|
2 | let _ = async move { };
| ^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
error: could not compile `move_async_test`
```
Is there a file/module where these kind of things are tested?
Would love some feedback 😄
|
|
|
|
Ran the tidy check
Following the diagnostic guide better
Diagnostic generation is now relegated to its own function in the diagnostics module.
Added tests
Fixed the ui test
|
|
|
|
Gracefully handle mistyping -> as => in function return type
Fixes #77019
|
|
Thanks to Vadim Petrochenkov who [told me what the fix was][z]!
[z]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/finding.20which.20macro.20rule.20to.20use/near/220240422
|
|
|
|
Properly capture trailing 'unglued' token
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.
|
|
Recover on `const impl<> X for Y`
`@leonardo-m` mentioned that `const impl Foo for Bar` could be recovered from in #79287.
I'm not sure about the error strings as they are, I think it should probably be something like the error that `expected_one_of_not_found` makes + the suggestion to flip the keywords, but I'm not sure how exactly to do that. Also, I decided not to try to handle `const unsafe impl` or `unsafe const impl` cause I figured that `unsafe impl const` would be pretty rare anyway (if it's even valid?), and it wouldn't be worth making the code more messy.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixes #79357 unstable or-pat suggestions
Fixes #79357
|
|
|
|
Update error to reflect that integer literals can have float suffixes
For example, `1` is parsed as an integer literal, but it can be turned
into a float with the suffix `f32`. Now the error calls them "numeric
literals" and notes that you can add a float suffix since they can be
either integers or floats.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Properly handle attributes on statements
We now collect tokens for the underlying node wrapped by `StmtKind`
nstead 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`.
|
|
For example, `1` is parsed as an integer literal, but it can be turned
into a float with the suffix `f32`. Now the error calls them "numeric
literals" and notes that you can add a float suffix since they can be
either integers or floats.
|
|
rustc_parse: restore public visibility on parse_attribute
Make `parse_attribute` public as rustfmt is a downstream consumer. Refs https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78782#discussion_r530658904
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
Generic Associated Types in Trait Paths - Ast part
The Ast part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78978
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
When parsing a statement (e.g. inside a function body),
we now consider `struct Foo {};` and `$stmt;` to each consist
of two statements: `struct Foo {}` and `;`, and `$stmt` and `;`.
As a result, an attribute macro invoke as
`fn foo() { #[attr] struct Bar{}; }` will see `struct Bar{}` as its
input. Additionally, the 'unused semicolon' lint now fires in more
places.
|
|
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`.
|
|
Cache pretty-print/retokenize result to avoid compile time blowup
Fixes #79242
If a `macro_rules!` recursively builds up a nested nonterminal
(passing it to a proc-macro at each step), we will end up repeatedly
pretty-printing/retokenizing the same nonterminals. Unfortunately, the
'probable equality' check we do has a non-trivial cost, which leads to a
blowup in compilation time.
As a workaround, we cache the result of the 'probable equality' check,
which eliminates the compilation time blowup for the linked issue. This
commit only touches a single file (other than adding tests), so it
should be easy to backport.
The proper solution is to remove the pretty-print/retokenize hack
entirely. However, this will almost certainly break a large number of
crates that were relying on hygiene bugs created by using the reparsed
`TokenStream`. As a result, we will definitely not want to backport
such a change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixes #79242
If a `macro_rules!` recursively builds up a nested nonterminal
(passing it to a proc-macro at each step), we will end up repeatedly
pretty-printing/retokenizing the same nonterminals. Unfortunately, the
'probable equality' check we do has a non-trivial cost, which leads to a
blowup in compilation time.
As a workaround, we cache the result of the 'probable equality' check,
which eliminates the compilation time blowup for the linked issue. This
commit only touches a single file (other than adding tests), so it
should be easy to backport.
The proper solution is to remove the pretty-print/retokenize hack
entirely. However, this will almost certainly break a large number of
crates that were relying on hygiene bugs created by using the reparsed
`TokenStream`. As a result, we will definitely not want to backport
such a change.
|
|
Stabilise `then`
Stabilises the lazy variant of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64260 now that the FCP [has ended](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64260#issuecomment-731636203).
I've kept the original feature gate `bool_to_option` for the strict variant (`then_some`), and created a new insta-stable feature gate `lazy_bool_to_option` for `then`.
|
|
|
|
"to big" -> "too big"
|
|
expand/resolve: Pre-requisites to "Turn `#[derive]` into a regular macro attribute"
Miscellaneous refactorings and error reporting changes extracted from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79078.
Unlike https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79078 this PR doesn't make any observable changes to the language or library.
r? ```@Aaron1011```
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make `_` an expression, to discard values in destructuring assignments
This is the third and final step towards implementing destructuring assignment (RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2909, tracking issue: #71126). This PR is the third and final part of #71156, which was split up to allow for easier review.
With this PR, an underscore `_` is parsed as an expression but is allowed *only* on the left-hand side of a destructuring assignment. There it simply discards a value, similarly to the wildcard `_` in patterns. For instance,
```rust
(a, _) = (1, 2)
```
will simply assign 1 to `a` and discard the 2. Note that for consistency,
```
_ = foo
```
is also allowed and equivalent to just `foo`.
Thanks to ````@varkor```` who helped with the implementation, particularly around pre-expansion gating.
r? ````@petrochenkov````
|
|
Co-authored-by: varkor <github@varkor.com>
|
|
rustc_parse: Remove optimization for 0-length streams in `collect_tokens`
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.
r? `@Aaron1011`
|
|
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.
|
|
Implement destructuring assignment for structs and slices
This is the second step towards implementing destructuring assignment (RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2909, tracking issue: #71126). This PR is the second part of #71156, which was split up to allow for easier review.
Note that the first PR (#78748) is not merged yet, so it is included as the first commit in this one. I thought this would allow the review to start earlier because I have some time this weekend to respond to reviews. If ``@petrochenkov`` prefers to wait until the first PR is merged, I totally understand, of course.
This PR implements destructuring assignment for (tuple) structs and slices. In order to do this, the following *parser change* was necessary: struct expressions are not required to have a base expression, i.e. `Struct { a: 1, .. }` becomes legal (in order to act like a struct pattern).
Unfortunately, this PR slightly regresses the diagnostics implemented in #77283. However, it is only a missing help message in `src/test/ui/issues/issue-77218.rs`. Other instances of this diagnostic are not affected. Since I don't exactly understand how this help message works and how to fix it yet, I was hoping it's OK to regress this temporarily and fix it in a follow-up PR.
Thanks to ``@varkor`` who helped with the implementation, particularly around the struct rest changes.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
|
|
Do not collect tokens for doc comments
Doc comment is a single token and AST has all the information to re-create it precisely.
Doc comments are also responsible for majority of calls to `collect_tokens` (with `num_calls == 1` and `num_calls == 0`, cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78736).
(I also moved token collection into `fn parse_attribute` to deduplicate code a bit.)
r? `@Aaron1011`
|
