| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
# Stabilization proposal
The feature was implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/50045 by est31 and has been in nightly since 2018-05-16 (over 4 years now).
There are [no open issues][issue-label] other than the tracking issue. There is a strong consensus that `break` is the right keyword and we should not use `return`.
There have been several concerns raised about this feature on the tracking issue (other than the one about tests, which has been fixed, and an interaction with try blocks, which has been fixed).
1. nrc's original comment about cost-benefit analysis: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422235234
2. joshtriplett's comments about seeing use cases: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422281176
3. withoutboats's comments that Rust does not need more control flow constructs: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-450050630
Many different examples of code that's simpler using this feature have been provided:
- A lexer by rpjohnst which must repeat code without label-break-value: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422502014
- A snippet by SergioBenitez which avoids using a new function and adding several new return points to a function: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-427628251. This particular case would also work if `try` blocks were stabilized (at the cost of making the code harder to optimize).
- Several examples by JohnBSmith: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-434651395
- Several examples by Centril: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-440154733
- An example by petrochenkov where this is used in the compiler itself to avoid duplicating error checking code: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-443557569
- Amanieu recently provided another example related to complex conditions, where try blocks would not have helped: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1184213006
Additionally, petrochenkov notes that this is strictly more powerful than labelled loops due to macros which accidentally exit a loop instead of being consumed by the macro matchers: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-450246249
nrc later resolved their concern, mostly because of the aforementioned macro problems.
joshtriplett suggested that macros could be able to generate IR directly
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-451685983) but there are no open RFCs,
and the design space seems rather speculative.
joshtriplett later resolved his concerns, due to a symmetry between this feature and existing labelled break: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-632960804
withoutboats has regrettably left the language team.
joshtriplett later posted that the lang team would consider starting an FCP given a stabilization report: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1111269353
[issue-label]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AF-label_break_value+
## Report
+ Feature gate:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/src/test/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-label_break_value.rs
+ Diagnostics:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6b2d3d5f3cd1e553d87b5496632132565b6779d3/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs#L2629
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L749
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L1001
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/111df9e6eda1d752233482c1309d00d20a4bbf98/compiler/rustc_passes/src/loops.rs#L254
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L2079
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L1569
+ Tests:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_continue.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_unlabeled_break.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_illegal_uses.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/lint/unused_labels.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/run-pass/for-loop-while/label_break_value.rs
## Interactions with other features
Labels follow the hygiene of local variables.
label-break-value is permitted within `try` blocks:
```rust
let _: Result<(), ()> = try {
'foo: {
Err(())?;
break 'foo;
}
};
```
label-break-value is disallowed within closures, generators, and async blocks:
```rust
'a: {
|| break 'a
//~^ ERROR use of unreachable label `'a`
//~| ERROR `break` inside of a closure
}
```
label-break-value is disallowed on [_BlockExpression_]; it can only occur as a [_LoopExpression_]:
```rust
fn labeled_match() {
match false 'b: { //~ ERROR block label not supported here
_ => {}
}
}
macro_rules! m {
($b:block) => {
'lab: $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
unsafe $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
|x: u8| -> () $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
}
}
fn foo() {
m!({});
}
```
[_BlockExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/block-expr.html
[_LoopExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/loop-expr.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't ICE while suggesting updating item path.
When an item isn't found, we may suggest an appropriate import to `use`. Along with that, we also suggest updating the path to work with the `use`. Unfortunately, if the code in question originates from a macro, the span used to indicate which part of the path needs updating may not be suitable and cause an ICE (*). Since, such code is not adjustable directly by the user without modifying the macro, just skip the suggestion in such cases.
(*) The ICE happens because the emitter want to indicate to the user what code to delete by referencing a certain span. But in this case, said span has `lo == hi == 0` which means it thinks it's a dummy span. Adding a space before the proc macro attribute is enough to stop it from ICE'ing but even then the suggestion doesn't really make any sense:
```
help: if you import `DataStore`, refer to it directly
|
1 - #[dbstruct::dbstruct]
1 + #[dbstruct::dbstruct]
```
Since suggestions are best-effort, I just gated this one on `can_be_used_for_suggestions` which catches cases like this.
Fixes #100199
|
|
|
|
|
|
For named arguments used as implicit position arguments, underline both
the opening curly brace and either:
* if there is formatting, the next character (which will either be the
closing curl brace or the `:` denoting the start of formatting args)
* if there is no formatting, the entire arg span (important if there is
whitespace like `{ }`)
This should make it more obvious where the named argument should be.
Additionally, in the lint message, emit the formatting argument names
without a dollar sign to avoid potentially confusion.
Fixes #99907
|
|
Generate correct suggestion with named arguments used positionally
Address issue #99265 by checking each positionally used argument
to see if the argument is named and adding a lint to use the name
instead. This way, when named arguments are used positionally in a
different order than their argument order, the suggested lint is
correct.
For example:
```
println!("{b} {}", a=1, b=2);
```
This will now generate the suggestion:
```
println!("{b} {a}", a=1, b=2);
```
Additionally, this check now also correctly replaces or inserts
only where the positional argument is (or would be if implicit).
Also, width and precision are replaced with their argument names
when they exists.
Since the issues were so closely related, this fix for issue #99265
also fixes issue #99266.
Fixes #99265
Fixes #99266
|
|
Address issue #99265 by checking each positionally used argument
to see if the argument is named and adding a lint to use the name
instead. This way, when named arguments are used positionally in a
different order than their argument order, the suggested lint is
correct.
For example:
```
println!("{b} {}", a=1, b=2);
```
This will now generate the suggestion:
```
println!("{b} {a}", a=1, b=2);
```
Additionally, this check now also correctly replaces or inserts
only where the positional argument is (or would be if implicit).
Also, width and precision are replaced with their argument names
when they exists.
Since the issues were so closely related, this fix for issue #99265
also fixes issue #99266.
Fixes #99265
Fixes #99266
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revert "Stabilize $$ in Rust 1.63.0"
This mechanically reverts commit 9edaa76adce4de737db54194eb13d6c298827b37, the one commit from #95860.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/99035; the behavior of `$$crate` is potentially unexpected and not ready to be stabilized. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99193 attempts to forbid `$$crate` without also destabilizing `$$` more generally.
`@rustbot` modify labels +T-compiler +T-lang +P-medium +beta-nominated +relnotes
(applying the labels I think are accurate from the issue and alternative partial revert)
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum`
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit 9edaa76adce4de737db54194eb13d6c298827b37.
|
|
migrate some of `rustc_passes::check_attr`'s diagnostics and derive improvements
- Implements `IntoDiagnosticArg` for `char` using its `Debug` implementation and introduces a macro for those types which just delegate the implementation to `ToString`.
- Apply the `#[rustc_lint_diagnostics]` attribute to `LintDiagnosticBuilder::build` so that diagnostic migration lints will trigger for it - some diagnostics in `rustc_privacy` need updated after this since the lints apply to that crate.
- Add support for `MultiSpan` with any of the attributes that work on a `Span` in the diagnostic derive (`SessionDiagnostic` + `LintDiagnostic`). Requires that diagnostic logic generated for these attributes are emitted in the by-move block rather than the by-ref block that they would normally have been generated in.
- Both diagnostic and subdiagnostic derives were missing the ability to add warnings to diagnostics - this is made more difficult by the `warn` attribute already existing, so this name being unavailable for the derives to use. `#[warn_]` is used instead, which requires special-casing so that `{span_,}warn` is called instead of `{span_,}warn_`.
- Migrate half of the `rustc_passes::check_attr` diagnostics to using diagnostic derives and being translatable. I got tired after a while. I modified some diagnostic output for consistency while doing this, nothing too crazy.
r? `@compiler-errors`
|
|
|
|
Migrate half of the `rustc_passes::check_attr` diagnostics to using
diagnostic derives and being translatable.
|
|
Addresses Issue 98466 by emitting a warning if a named argument
is used like a position argument (i.e. the name is not used in
the string to be formatted).
Fixes rust-lang#98466
|
|
|
|
[RFC 2011] Optimize non-consuming operators
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44838
Fifth step of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/96496
The most non-invasive approach that will probably have very little to no performance impact.
## Current behaviour
Captures are handled "on-the-fly", i.e., they are performed in the same place expressions are located.
```rust
// `let a = 1; let b = 2; assert!(a > 1 && b < 100);`
if !(
{ ***try capture `a` and then return `a`*** } > 1 && { ***try capture `b` and then return `b`*** } < 100
) {
panic!( ... );
}
```
As such, some overhead is likely to occur (Specially with very large chains of conditions).
## New behaviour for non-consuming operators
When an operator is known to not take `self`, then it is possible to capture variables **AFTER** the condition.
```rust
// `let a = 1; let b = 2; assert!(a > 1 && b < 100);`
if !( a > 1 && b < 100 ) {
{ ***try capture `a`*** }
{ ***try capture `b`*** }
panic!( ... );
}
```
So the possible impact on the runtime execution time will be diminished.
r? ````@oli-obk````
|
|
Migrate two diagnostics from the `rustc_builtin_macros` crate
Migrate two diagnostics to use the struct derive and be translatable.
r? ```@davidtwco```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[RFC 2011] Expand expressions where possible
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44838
Fourth step of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/96496
Extends https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97665 considering expressions that are good candidates for expansion.
r? `@oli-obk`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remove feature: `crate` visibility modifier
FCP completed in #53120.
|
|
|
|
Move some tests to more reasonable directories
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add test of matches macro for trailing commas
Almost all macros are tested for trailing commas.
The macro matches! was however not tested.
This PR adds that test case.
Related to #46238
|
|
Implement a lint to warn about unused macro rules
This implements a new lint to warn about unused macro rules (arms/matchers), similar to the `unused_macros` lint added by #41907 that warns about entire macros.
```rust
macro_rules! unused_empty {
(hello) => { println!("Hello, world!") };
() => { println!("empty") }; //~ ERROR: 1st rule of macro `unused_empty` is never used
}
fn main() {
unused_empty!(hello);
}
```
Builds upon #96149 and #96156.
Fixes #73576
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we don't find an item we search all of them for an appropriate
import and suggest `use`ing it. This is sometimes done for expressions
that have paths with more than one segment. We now also suggest changing
that path to work with the `use`.
Fix #95413
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
r=estebank
Better method call error messages
Rebase/continuation of #71827
~Based on #92360~
~Based on #93118~
There's a decent description in #71827 that I won't copy here (for now at least)
In addition to rebasing, I've tried to restore most of the original suggestions for invalid arguments. Unfortunately, this does make some of the errors a bit verbose. To fix this will require a bit of refactoring to some of the generalized error suggestion functions, and I just don't have the time to go into it right now.
I think this is in a state that the error messages are overall better than before without a reduction in the suggestions given.
~I've tried to split out some of the easier and self-contained changes into separate commits (mostly in #92360, but also one here). There might be more than can be done here, but again just lacking time.~
r? `@estebank` as the original reviewer of #71827
|
