| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Cleanup: Consistently use `Param` instead of `Arg` #62426
Fixes #62426
|
|
|
|
Propagate spans and attributes from proc macro definitions
Thanks to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/63269 we now have spans and attributes from proc macro definitions available in metadata.
However, that PR didn't actually put them into use! This PR finishes that work.
Attributes `rustc_macro_transparency`, `allow_internal_unstable`, `allow_internal_unsafe`, `local_inner_macros`, `rustc_builtin_macro`, `stable`, `unstable`, `rustc_deprecated`, `deprecated` now have effect when applied to proc macro definition functions.
From those attributes only `deprecated` is both stable and supposed to be used in new code.
(`#![staged_api]` still cannot be used in proc macro crates for unrelated reasons though.)
`Span::def_site` from the proc macro API now returns the correct location of the proc macro definition.
Also, I made a mistake in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/63269#discussion_r312702919, loaded proc macros didn't actually use the resolver cache.
This PR fixes the caching issue, now proc macros go through the `Resolver::macro_map` cache as well.
(Also, the first commit turns `proc_macro::quote` into a regular built-in macro to reduce the number of places where `SyntaxExtension`s need to be manually created.)
|
|
Which is no longer dummy and is available from metadata now.
|
|
|
|
Refactor feature gates
After #63824, this goes a few steps further by
- parsing doc comments in the macros to extract descriptions for feature gates, and
- introducing a common `Feature` type to replace the tuples used previously to improve readability.
The descriptions are not yet used, but I felt like this PR is a useful enough refactoring on its own.
r? @Centril
|
|
Fully implement or-pattern parsing
Builds upon the initial parsing in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61708 to fully implement or-pattern (`p | q`) parsing as specified in [the grammar section of RFC 2535](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2535-or-patterns.md#grammar).
Noteworthy:
- We allow or-patterns in `[p | q, ...]`.
- We allow or-patterns in `let` statements and `for` expressions including with leading `|`.
- We improve recovery for `p || q` (+ tests for that in `multiple-pattern-typo.rs`).
- We improve recovery for `| p | q` in inner patterns (tests in `or-patterns-syntactic-fail.rs`).
- We rigorously test or-pattern parsing (in `or-patterns-syntactic-{pass,fail}.rs`).
- We harden the feature gating tests.
- We do **_not_** change `ast.rs`. That is, `ExprKind::Let.0` and `Arm.pats` still accept `Vec<P<Pat>>`.
I was starting work on that but it would be cleaner to do this in a separate PR so this one has a narrower scope.
cc @dlrobertson
cc the tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54883.
r? @estebank
|
|
|
|
Tries to clarify the filtering of active features and make the code more
expressive.
|
|
|
|
This replaces the ad-hoc tuples used in the different feature gate files
and unifies their content into a common type, leading to more readable
matches and other good stuff that comes from having named fields. It
also contains the description of each feature as extracted from the doc
comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Modifies how Arg, Arm, Field, FieldPattern and Variant are visited
Part of the necessary work to accomplish #63468.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the necessary work to accomplish #63468.
|
|
This is just in preparation for future usage of these texts.
|
|
Audit uses of `apply_mark` in built-in macros + Remove default macro transparencies
Every use of `apply_mark` in a built-in or procedural macro is supposed to look like this
```rust
location.with_ctxt(SyntaxContext::root().apply_mark(ecx.current_expansion.id))
```
where `SyntaxContext::root()` means that the built-in/procedural macro is defined directly, rather than expanded from some other macro.
However, few people understood what `apply_mark` does, so we had a lot of copy-pasted uses of it looking e.g. like
```rust
span = span.apply_mark(ecx.current_expansion.id);
```
, which doesn't really make sense for procedural macros, but at the same time is not too harmful, if the macros use the traditional `macro_rules` hygiene.
So, to fight this, we stop using `apply_mark` directly in built-in macro implementations, and follow the example of regular proc macros instead and use analogues of `Span::def_site()` and `Span::call_site()`, which are much more intuitive and less error-prone.
- `ecx.with_def_site_ctxt(span)` takes the `span`'s location and combines it with a def-site context.
- `ecx.with_call_site_ctxt(span)` takes the `span`'s location and combines it with a call-site context.
Even if called multiple times (which sometimes happens due to some historical messiness of the built-in macro code) these functions will produce the same result, unlike `apply_mark` which will grow the mark chain further in this case.
---
After `apply_mark`s in built-in macros are eliminated, the remaining `apply_mark`s are very few in number, so we can start passing the previously implicit `Transparency` argument to them explicitly, thus eliminating the need in `default_transparency` fields in hygiene structures and `#[rustc_macro_transparency]` annotations on built-in macros.
So, the task of making built-in macros opaque can now be formulated as "eliminate `with_legacy_ctxt` in favor of `with_def_site_ctxt`" rather than "replace `#[rustc_macro_transparency = "semitransparent"]` with `#[rustc_macro_transparency = "opaque"]`".
r? @matthewjasper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
