| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Field init shorthand allows writing initializers like `tcx: tcx` as
`tcx`. The compiler already uses it extensively. Fix the last few places
where it isn't yet used.
|
|
Keep track of patterns that could have introduced a binding, but didn't
When we recover from a pattern parse error, or a pattern uses `..`, we keep track of that and affect resolution error for missing bindings that could have been provided by that pattern. We differentiate between `..` and parse recovery. We silence resolution errors likely caused by the pattern parse error.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `title` in this scope
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:18:30
|
LL | if let Website { url, .. } = website {
| ------------------- this pattern doesn't include `title`, which is available in `Website`
LL | println!("[{}]({})", title, url);
| ^^^^^ not found in this scope
```
Fix #74863.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove `Lexer`'s dependency on `Parser`.
Lexing precedes parsing, as you'd expect: `Lexer` creates a `TokenStream` and `Parser` then parses that `TokenStream`.
But, in a horrendous violation of layering abstractions and common sense, `Lexer` depends on `Parser`! The `Lexer::unclosed_delim_err` method does some error recovery that relies on creating a `Parser` to do some post-processing of the `TokenStream` that the `Lexer` just created.
This commit just removes `unclosed_delim_err`. This change removes `Lexer`'s dependency on `Parser`, and also means that `lex_token_tree`'s return value can have a more typical form.
The cost is slightly worse error messages in two obscure cases, as shown in these tests:
- tests/ui/parser/brace-in-let-chain.rs: there is slightly less explanation in this case involving an extra `{`.
- tests/ui/parser/diff-markers/unclosed-delims{,-in-macro}.rs: the diff marker detection is no longer supported (because that detection is implemented in the parser).
In my opinion this cost is outweighed by the magnitude of the code cleanup.
r? ```````@chenyukang```````
|
|
When we recover from a pattern parse error, or a pattern uses `..`, we keep track of that and affect resolution error for missing bindings that could have been provided by that pattern. We differentiate between `..` and parse recovery. We silence resolution errors likely caused by the pattern parse error.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `title` in this scope
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:19:30
|
LL | println!("[{}]({})", title, url);
| ^^^^^ not found in this scope
|
note: `Website` has a field `title` which could have been included in this pattern, but it wasn't
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:17:12
|
LL | / struct Website {
LL | | url: String,
LL | | title: Option<String> ,
| | ----- defined here
LL | | }
| |_-
...
LL | if let Website { url, .. } = website {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this pattern doesn't include `title`, which is available in `Website`
```
Fix #74863.
|
|
Add AST support for unsafe binders
I'm splitting up #130514 into pieces. It's impossible for me to keep up with a huge PR like that. I'll land type system support for this next, probably w/o MIR lowering, which will come later.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@BoxyUwU` and `@lcnr` who also may want to look at this, though this PR doesn't do too much yet
|
|
estebank:silence-resolve-errors-from-mod-with-parse-errors, r=davidtwco
Keep track of parse errors in `mod`s and don't emit resolve errors for paths involving them
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around in the HIR and mark its `DefId` in the `Resolver`. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by expansion of `mod`s with parse errors.
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97734.
|
|
|
|
Lexing precedes parsing, as you'd expect: `Lexer` creates a
`TokenStream` and `Parser` then parses that `TokenStream`.
But, in a horrendous violation of layering abstractions and common
sense, `Lexer` depends on `Parser`! The `Lexer::unclosed_delim_err`
method does some error recovery that relies on creating a `Parser` to do
some post-processing of the `TokenStream` that the `Lexer` just created.
This commit just removes `unclosed_delim_err`. This change removes
`Lexer`'s dependency on `Parser`, and also means that `lex_token_tree`'s
return value can have a more typical form.
The cost is slightly worse error messages in two obscure cases, as shown
in these tests:
- tests/ui/parser/brace-in-let-chain.rs: there is slightly less
explanation in this case involving an extra `{`.
- tests/ui/parser/diff-markers/unclosed-delims{,-in-macro}.rs: the diff
marker detection is no longer supported (because that detection is
implemented in the parser).
In my opinion this cost is outweighed by the magnitude of the code
cleanup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove `PErr`.
It's just a synonym for `Diag` that adds no value and is only used in a few places.
r? ``@spastorino``
|
|
r=jieyouxu
allow `symbol_intern_string_literal` lint in test modules
Since #133545, `x check compiler --stage 1` no longer works because compiler test modules trigger `symbol_intern_string_literal` lint errors. Bootstrap shouldn't control when to ignore or enable this lint in the compiler tree (using `Kind != Test` was ineffective for obvious reasons).
Also, conditionally adding this rustflag invalidates the build cache between `x test` and other commands.
This PR removes the `Kind` check from bootstrap and handles it directly in the compiler tree in a more natural way.
|
|
It's just a synonym for `Diag` that adds no value and is only used in a
few places.
|
|
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
|
|
method call without ()
|
|
involving them
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by `mod` expansion.
Fix #97734.
|
|
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #133996 (Move most tests for `-l` and `#[link(..)]` into `tests/ui/link-native-libs`)
- #134012 (Grammar fixes)
- #134032 (docs: better examples for `std::ops::ControlFlow`)
- #134040 (bootstrap: print{ln}! -> eprint{ln}! (take 2))
- #134043 (Add test to check unicode identifier version)
- #134053 (rustdoc: rename `issue-\d+.rs` tests to have meaningful names (part 10))
- #134055 (interpret: clean up deduplicating allocation functions)
- #134073 (dataflow_const_prop: do not eval a ptr address in SwitchInt)
- #134084 (Fix typo in RFC mention 3598 -> 3593)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Fix typo in RFC mention 3598 -> 3593
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3593-unprefixed-guarded-strings.md
|
|
Add test to check unicode identifier version
This adds a test to verify which version of Unicode is used for identifiers. This is part of the language, documented at https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/identifiers.html#r-ident.unicode. The version here often changes implicitly due to dependency updates pulling in new versions, and thus we often don't notice it has changed leaving the documentation out of date. The intent here is to have a canary to give us a notification when it changes so that we can update the documentation.
|
|
Emit a specific error for unsupported default field value syntax in tuple structs.
|
|
Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681.
Support default fields in enum struct variant
Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition:
```rust
pub enum Bar {
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant
```rust
Bar::Foo { .. }
```
`#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants.
Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields
```rust
pub enum Bar {
#[default]
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build.
Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled).
Properly instantiate MIR const
The following works:
```rust
struct S<A> {
a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(),
}
S::<i32> { .. }
```
Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval
We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users'
getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error
that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to
*always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted.
This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the
expression relies on a const parameter.
Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`:
- Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields.
- Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values.
- Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
|
|
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3593-unprefixed-guarded-strings.md
|
|
|
|
Parse guard patterns
This implements the parsing of [RFC3637 Guard Patterns](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3637-guard-patterns.html) (see also [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129967)). This PR is extracted from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129996 with minor modifications.
cc `@max-niederman`
|
|
|
|
Lint against Symbol::intern on a string literal
Disabled in tests where this doesn't make much sense
|
|
Gate async fn trait bound modifier on `async_trait_bounds`
This PR moves `async Fn()` trait bounds into a new feature gate: `feature(async_trait_bounds)`. The general vibe is that we will most likely stabilize the `feature(async_closure)` *without* the `async Fn()` trait bound modifier, so we need to gate that separately.
We're trying to work on the general vision of `async` trait bound modifier general in: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3710, however that RFC still needs more time for consensus to converge, and we've decided that the value that users get from calling the bound `async Fn()` is *not really* worth blocking landing async closures in general.
|
|
Change `AttrArgs::Eq` to a struct variant
Cleanups for simplifying https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131808
Basically changes `AttrArgs::Eq` to a struct variant and then avoids several matches on `AttrArgsEq` in favor of methods on it. This will make future refactorings simpler, as they can either keep methods or switch to field accesses without having to restructure code
|
|
|
|
Eliminate magic numbers from expression precedence
Context: see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133140.
This PR continues on backporting Syn's expression precedence design into rustc. Rustc's design used mysterious integer quantities represented variously as `i8` or `usize` (e.g. `PREC_CLOSURE = -40i8`), a special significance around `0` that is never named, and an extra `PREC_FORCE_PAREN` precedence level that does not correspond to any expression. Syn's design uses a C-like enum with variants that clearly correspond to specific sets of expression kinds.
This PR is a refactoring that has no intended behavior change on its own, but it unblocks other precedence work that rustc's precedence design was poorly suited to accommodate.
- Asymmetrical precedence, so that a pretty-printer can tell `(return 1) + 1` needs parens but `1 + return 1` does not.
- Squashing the `Closure` and `Jump` cases into a single precedence level.
- Numerous remaining false positives and false negatives in rustc pretty-printer's parenthesization of macro metavariables, for example in `$e < rhs` where $e is `lhs as Thing<T>`.
FYI `@fmease` — you don't need to review if rustbot picks someone else, but you mentioned being interested in the followup PRs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improve span handling in `parse_expr_bottom`.
`parse_expr_bottom` stores `this.token.span` in `lo`, but then fails to use it in many places where it could. This commit fixes that, and likewise (to a smaller extent) in `parse_ty_common`.
r? ``@spastorino``
|
|
|
|
Trim extra space in 'repeated `mut`' diagnostic
Trim an extra space when removing repeated `mut`.
Also an extra test for even more repeated `mut`s
|
|
fix confusing diagnostic for reserved `##`
Closes #131615
|
|
`parse_expr_bottom` stores `this.token.span` in `lo`, but then fails to
use it in many places where it could. This commit fixes that, and
likewise (to a smaller extent) in `parse_ty_common`.
|
|
|
|
Inline ExprPrecedence::order into Expr::precedence
The representation of expression precedence in rustc_ast has been an obstacle to further improvements in the pretty-printer (continuing from #119105 and #119427).
Previously the operation of *"does this expression have lower precedence than that one"* (relevant for parenthesis insertion in macro-generated syntax trees) consisted of 3 steps:
1. Convert `Expr` to `ExprPrecedence` using `.precedence()`
2. Convert `ExprPrecedence` to `i8` using `.order()`
3. Compare using `<`
As far as I can guess, the reason for the separation between `precedence()` and `order()` was so that both `rustc_ast::Expr` and `rustc_hir::Expr` could convert as straightforwardly as possible to the same `ExprPrecedence` enum, and then the more finicky logic performed by `order` could be present just once.
The mapping between `Expr` and `ExprPrecedence` was intended to be as straightforward as possible:
```rust
match self.kind {
ExprKind::Closure(..) => ExprPrecedence::Closure,
...
}
```
although there were exceptions of both many-to-one, and one-to-many:
```rust
ExprKind::Underscore => ExprPrecedence::Path,
ExprKind::Path(..) => ExprPrecedence::Path,
...
ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Prefix) => ExprPrecedence::Match,
ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Postfix) => ExprPrecedence::PostfixMatch,
```
Where the nature of `ExprPrecedence` becomes problematic is when a single expression kind might be associated with multiple different precedence levels depending on context (outside the expression) and contents (inside the expression). For example consider what is the precedence of an ExprKind::Closure `$closure`. Well, on the left-hand side of a binary operator it would need parentheses in order to avoid the trailing binary operator being absorbed into the closure body: `($closure) + Rhs`, so the precedence is something lower than that of `+`. But on the right-hand side of a binary operator, a closure is just a straightforward prefix expression like a unary op, which is a relatively high precedence level, higher than binops but lower than method calls: `Lhs + $closure` is fine without parens but `($closure).method()` needs them. But as a third case, if the closure contains an explicit return type, then the precedence is an even higher level than that, never needing parenthesization even in a binop left-hand side or method call: `|| -> bool { false } + Rhs` or `|| -> bool { false }.method()`.
You can see that trying to capture all of this resolution about expressions into `ExprPrecedence` violates the intention of `ExprPrecedence` being a straightforward one-to-one correspondence from each AST and HIR `ExprKind` variant. It would be possible to attempt that by doing stuff like `ExprPrecedence::Closure(Side::Leading, ReturnType::No)`, but I don't foresee the original envisioned benefit of the `precedence()`/`order()` distinction being retained in this approach. Instead I want to move toward a model that Syn has been using successfully. In Syn, there is a Precedence enum but it differs from rustc in the following ways:
- There are [relatively few variants](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/precedence.rs#L11-L47) compared to rustc's `ExprPrecedence`. For example there is no distinction at the precedence level between returns and closures, or between loops and method calls.
- We distinguish between [leading](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L293) and [trailing](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L309) precedence, taking into account an expression's context such as what token follows it (for various syntactic bail-outs in Rust's grammar, like ambiguities around break-with-value) and how it relates to operators from the surrounding syntax tree.
- There are no hardcoded mysterious integer quantities like rustc's `PREC_CLOSURE = -40`. All precedence comparisons are performed via PartialOrd on a C-like enum.
This PR is just a first step in these changes. As you can tell from Syn, I definitely think there is value in having a dedicated type to represent precedence, instead of what `order()` is doing with `i8`. But that is a whole separate adventure because rustc_ast doesn't even agree consistently on `i8` being the type for precedence order; `AssocOp::precedence` instead uses `usize` and there are casts in both directions. It is likely that a type called `ExprPrecedence` will re-appear, but it will look substantially different from the one that existed before this PR.
|
|
Lexer tweaks
Some cleanups and small performance improvements.
r? ```@chenyukang```
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Use iterators instead of `for` loops.
- Use `if`/`else` instead of `match`.
|
|
Must be one of those cases where the function is too long and rustfmt
bails out.
|
|
It has two different ways of being called.
|
