| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
[breaking-change] for lint authors
You must now implement LateLintPass or EarlyLintPass as well as LintPass and use either register_late_lint_pass or register_early_lint_pass, rather than register_lint_pass.
|
|
There is a minor [breaking-change] for lint authors - some functions which were previously defined on `lint::Context` have moved to a trait - `LintContext`, you may need to import that trait to avoid name resolution errors.
|
|
This is a [breaking-change] for syntax extension authors. The fix is to use MultiModifier or MultiDecorator, which have the same functionality but are more flexible. Users of syntax extensions are unaffected.
|
|
This allows marking attributes as whitelisted/crate-only independent of
their feature gate status.
Closes #24213
|
|
This lets plugin authors opt attributes out of the `custom_attribute`
and `unused_attribute` checks.
cc @thepowersgang
|
|
|
|
|
|
This lets plugin authors opt attributes out of the `custom_attribute`
and `unused_attribute` checks.
|
|
|
|
Conflicts:
src/librustc/plugin/registry.rs
src/libsyntax/ext/base.rs
src/libsyntax/ext/cfg_attr.rs
src/libsyntax/ext/deriving/mod.rs
src/libsyntax/ext/expand.rs
src/libsyntax/print/pprust.rs
src/test/auxiliary/macro_crate_test.rs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unstable items used in a macro expansion will now always trigger
stability warnings, *unless* the unstable items are directly inside a
macro marked with `#[allow_internal_unstable]`. IOW, the compiler warns
unless the span of the unstable item is a subspan of the definition of a
macro marked with that attribute.
E.g.
#[allow_internal_unstable]
macro_rules! foo {
($e: expr) => {{
$e;
unstable(); // no warning
only_called_by_foo!();
}}
}
macro_rules! only_called_by_foo {
() => { unstable() } // warning
}
foo!(unstable()) // warning
The unstable inside `foo` is fine, due to the attribute. But the
`unstable` inside `only_called_by_foo` is not, since that macro doesn't
have the attribute, and the `unstable` passed into `foo` is also not
fine since it isn't contained in the macro itself (that is, even though
it is only used directly in the macro).
In the process this makes the stability tracking much more precise,
e.g. previously `println!("{}", unstable())` got no warning, but now it
does. As such, this is a bug fix that may cause [breaking-change]s.
The attribute is definitely feature gated, since it explicitly allows
side-stepping the feature gating system.
|
|
Many of the modifications putting in `Box::new` calls also include a
pointer to Issue 22405, which tracks going back to `box <expr>` if
possible in the future.
(Still tried to use `Box<_>` where it sufficed; thus some tests still
have `box_syntax` enabled, as they use a mix of `box` and `Box::new`.)
Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181.
|
|
#[plugin] #[no_link] extern crate bleh;
becomes a crate attribute
#![plugin(bleh)]
The feature gate is still required.
It's almost never correct to link a plugin into the resulting library /
executable, because it will bring all of libsyntax and librustc with it.
However if you really want this behavior, you can get it with a separate
`extern crate` item in addition to the `plugin` attribute.
Fixes #21043.
Fixes #20769.
[breaking-change]
|
|
|
|
Allows modifiers to be used on methods, associated types, etc.
|
|
|
|
The implementation of LetSyntaxTT was specialized to macro_rules! in various
ways. This gets rid of the false generality and simplifies the code.
|
|
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221
The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when
writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the
possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot
because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak
of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other
circumlocutions.
Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when
operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate
out a section describing the "Err-producing" case.
We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as
an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology
accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe.
To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead.
Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this
will work on UNIX based systems:
grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g'
You can of course also do this by hand.
[breaking-change]
|
|
Change to resolve and update compiler and libs for uses.
[breaking-change]
Enum variants are now in both the value and type namespaces. This means that
if you have a variant with the same name as a type in scope in a module, you
will get a name clash and thus an error. The solution is to either rename the
type or the variant.
|
|
|
|
The spans inside of these types were always None and never used. Pass
the expander function directly instead of wrapping it in one of these
types.
[breaking-change]
|
|
This adds support for lint groups to the compiler. Lint groups are a way of
grouping a number of lints together under one name. For example, this also
defines a default lint for naming conventions, named `bad_style`. Writing
`#[allow(bad_style)]` is equivalent to writing
`#[allow(non_camel_case_types, non_snake_case, non_uppercase_statics)]`. These
lint groups can also be defined as a compiler plugin using the new
`Registry::register_lint_group` method.
This also adds two built-in lint groups, `bad_style` and `unused`. The contents
of these groups can be seen by running `rustc -W help`.
|
|
The let-syntax expander is different in that it doesn't apply
a mark to its token trees before expansion. This is used
for macro_rules, and it's because macro_rules is essentially
MTWT's let-syntax. You don't want to mark before expand sees
let-syntax, because there's no "after" syntax to mark again.
In some sense, the cleaner approach might be to introduce a new
AST node that macro_rules expands into; this would make it clearer
that the expansion of a macro is distinct from the addition of a
new macro binding.
This should work for now, though...
|
|
|
|
|
|
See RFC 22.
[breaking-change]
|
