| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit e90985acdec9928da9f6d157cfeb64f0ee98bffe.
|
|
This reverts commit 6810f5286b6b91daab06fc3dccb27d8c46f14349, reversing
changes made to 8586ec6980462c99a8926646201b2444d8938d29.
|
|
some cases
|
|
Derive helpers conflict currently conflict with anything else, so if some resolution from a single import appears later, it will result in error anyway
|
|
|
|
editions.
|
|
Temporarily prohibit proc macro attributes placed after derives
... and also proc macro attributes used together with `#[test]`/`#[bench]`.
Addresses item 6 from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/50911#issuecomment-411605393.
The end goal is straightforward predictable left-to-right expansion order for attributes.
Right now derives are expanded last regardless of their relative ordering with macro attributes and right now it's simpler to temporarily prohibit macro attributes placed after derives than changing the expansion order.
I'm not sure whether the new beta is already released or not, but if it's released, then this patch needs to be backported, so the solution needs to be minimal.
How to fix broken code (derives):
- Move macro attributes above derives. This won't change expansion order, they are expanded before derives anyway.
Using attribute macros on same items with `#[test]` and `#[bench]` is prohibited for similar expansion order reasons, but this one is going to be reverted much sooner than restrictions on derives.
How to fix broken code (test/bench):
- Enable `#![feature(plugin)]` (don't ask why).
r? @ghost
|
|
|
|
... and also proc macro attributes used together with test/bench.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
resolve: Introduce two sub-namespaces in macro namespace
Two sub-namespaces are introduced in the macro namespace - one for bang macros and one for attribute-like macros (attributes, derives).
"Sub-namespace" means this is not a newly introduced full namespace, the single macro namespace is still in place.
I.e. you still can't define/import two macros with the same name in a single module, `use` imports still import only one name in macro namespace (from any sub-namespace) and not possibly two.
However, when we are searching for a name used in a `!` macro call context (`my_macro!()`) we skip attribute names in scope, and when we are searching for a name used in attribute context (`#[my_macro]`/`#[derive(my_macro)]`) we are skipping bang macro names in scope.
In other words, bang macros cannot shadow attribute macros and vice versa.
For a non-macro analogy, we could e.g. skip non-traits when searching for `MyTrait` in `impl MyTrait for Type { ... }`.
However we do not do it in non-macro namespaces because we don't have practical issues with e.g. non-traits shadowing traits with the same name, but with macros we do, especially after macro modularization.
For `#[test]` and `#[bench]` we have a hack in the compiler right now preventing their shadowing by `macro_rules! test` and similar things. This hack was introduced after making `#[test]`/`#[bench]` built-in macros instead of built-in attributes (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53410), something that needed to be done from the start since they are "active" attributes transforming their inputs.
Now they are passed through normal name resolution and can be shadowed, but that's a breaking change, so we have a special hack basically applying this PR for `#[test]` and `#[bench]` only.
Soon all potentially built-in attributes will be passed through normal name resolution (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53913) and that uncovers even more cases where the strict "macro namespace is a single namespace" rule needs to be broken.
For example, with strict rules, built-in macro `cfg!(...)` would shadow built-in attribute `#[cfg]` (they are different things), standard library macro `thread_local!(...)` would shadow built-in attribute `#[thread_local]` - both of these cases are covered by special hacks in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53913 as well.
Crater run uncovered more cases of attributes being shadowed by user-defined macros (`warn`, `doc`, `main`, even `deprecated`), we cannot add exceptions in the compiler for all of them.
Regressions with user-defined attributes like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53583 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53898 also appeared after enabling macro modularization.
People are also usually confused (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53205#issuecomment-411552763, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53583#issuecomment-415447800) when they see conflicts between attributes and non-attribute macros for the first time.
So my proposed solution is to solve this issue by introducing two sub-namespaces and thus skipping resolutions of the wrong kind and preventing more error-causing cases of shadowing.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53583
|
|
rustc_resolve: don't treat uniform_paths canaries as ambiguities unless they resolve to distinct Def's.
In particular, this allows this pattern that @cramertj mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53130#issuecomment-420848814:
```rust
use log::{debug, log};
fn main() {
use log::{debug, log};
debug!(...);
}
```
The canaries for the inner `use log::...;`, *in the macro namespace*, see the `log` macro imported at the module scope, and the (same) `log` macro, imported in the block scope inside `main`.
Previously, these two possible (macro namspace) `log` resolutions would be considered ambiguous (from a forwards-compat standpoint, where we might make imports aware of block scopes).
With this PR, such a case is allowed *if and only if* all the possible resolutions refer to the same definition (more specifically, because the *same* `log` macro is being imported twice).
This condition subsumes previous (weaker) checks like #54005 and the second commit of #54011.
Only the last commit is the main change, the other two are cleanups.
r? @petrochenkov cc @Centril @joshtriplett
|
|
Add forever unstable attribute to allow specifying arbitrary scalar ranges
r? @eddyb for the first commit and @nikomatsakis for the second one
|
|
Implement RFC 2302: tuple_struct_self_ctor
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51994
|
|
resolve to distinct Def's.
|
|
|
|
present in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stabilize outlives requirements
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44493
r? @nikomatsakis
|
|
Co-authored-by: nikomatsakis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Invocation/expansion ID (aka `Mark`) is not really necessary for resolving a macro path.
What is really necessary is its parent module, parent expansion and parent legacy scope.
This is required for validation resolutions of built-in attributes, which don't get their own `Mark`s
|
|
rustc_resolve: inject `uniform_paths` canaries regardless of the feature-gate, on Rust 2018.
This PR is an attempt at future-proofing "anchored paths" by emitting the same ambiguity errors that `#![feature(uniform_paths)]` would, with slightly changed phrasing (see added UI tests).
Also, on top of #54005, this PR allows this as well:
```rust
use crate_name;
use crate_name::foo;
```
In that any ambiguity between an extern crate and an import *of that same crate* is ignored.
r? @petrochenkov cc @aturon @Centril @joshtriplett
|
|
the same crate.
|
|
feature-gate, on Rust 2018.
|
|
#53359: putting multiple unresolved import on single line
r? @estebank
Here is WIP implementation of #53359
this PR have clubbed multiple unresolved imports into a single line.
I think still two things need to improve like giving specific `label message` for each span of multi_span(how we can do this?) and second we are getting a warning while compiling, stating something like `E0432` have been passed before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
resolve: Relax shadowing restrictions on macro-expanded macros
Previously any macro-expanded macros weren't allowed to shadow macros from outer scopes.
Now only "more macro-expanded" macros cannot shadow "less macro-expanded" macros.
See comments to `fn may_appear_after` and added tests for more details and examples.
The functional changes are a21f6f588fc28c97533130ae44a6957b579ab58c and 46dd365ce9ca0a6b8653849b80267763c542842a, other commits are refactorings.
|
|
proc_macro::Group::span_open and span_close
Before this addition, every delimited group like `(`...`)` `[`...`]` `{`...`}` has only a single Span that covers the full source location from opening delimiter to closing delimiter. This makes it impossible for a procedural macro to trigger an error pointing to just the opening or closing delimiter. The Rust compiler does not seem to have the same limitation:
```rust
mod m {
type T =
}
```
```console
error: expected type, found `}`
--> src/main.rs:3:1
|
3 | }
| ^
```
On that same input, a procedural macro would be forced to trigger the error on the last token inside the block, on the entire block, or on the next token after the block, none of which is really what you want for an error like above.
This commit adds `group.span_open()` and `group.span_close()` which access the Span associated with just the opening delimiter and just the closing delimiter of the group. Relevant to Syn as we implement real error messages for when parsing fails in a procedural macro: https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/issues/476.
```diff
impl Group {
fn span(&self) -> Span;
+ fn span_open(&self) -> Span;
+ fn span_close(&self) -> Span;
}
```
Fixes #48187
r? @alexcrichton
|
|
rustc_resolve: only prepend CrateRoot to a non-keyword segment.
Fixes #53770 by treating `use` paths as absolute in a finer-grained manner, specifically:
```rust
use {a, crate::b, self::c, super::d};
```
Used to be interpreted as if it were (when `uniform_paths` is not enabled):
```rust
use ::{a, crate::b, self::c, super::d};
```
With this PR, the `CrateRoot` pseudo-keyword indicating an absolute path is only inserted when the first path segment is found (if it's not a keyword), i.e. the example behaves like:
```rust
use {::a, crate::b, self::c, super::d};
```
This should (finally) make `use {path};` fully equivalent to `use path;`.
r? @petrochenkov cc @cramertj @joshtriplett @nikomatsakis
|
|
Fix incorrect outer function type parameter message
Fix #51303.
|
|
|
|
diagnostic
Addressed estebank's comments for 53359
|
|
Add labels to ambiguous resolution errors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
