| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
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```````
|
|
Tweak multispan rendering to reduce output length
Consider comments and bare delimiters the same as an "empty line" for purposes of hiding rendered code output of long multispans. This results in more aggressive shortening of rendered output without losing too much context, specially in `*.stderr` tests that have "hidden" comments. We do that check not only on the first 4 lines of the multispan, but now also on the previous to last line as well.
|
|
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.
|
|
Advent of `tests/ui` (misc cleanups and improvements) [1/N]
Part of #133895.
Misc improvements to some ui tests immediately under `tests/ui/`.
Best reviewed commit-by-commit.
Thanks `@clubby789` for PR title suggestion 😸.
r? compiler
|
|
Consider comments and bare delimiters the same as an "empty line" for purposes of hiding rendered code output of long multispans. This results in more aggressive shortening of rendered output without losing too much context, specially in `*.stderr` tests that have "hidden" comments.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
- Document `as-precedence.rs`
- Move `as-precedence.rs` under `tests/ui/parser/`
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Advent of `tests/ui` (misc cleanups and improvements) [2/N]
Part of #133895.
Misc improvements to some ui tests immediately under `tests/ui/`.
Best reviewed commit-by-commit. Please see individual commit messages for some further rationale and change summaries.
r? compiler
|
|
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`
|
|
- Include the original MCVE as reported in
<https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/28777>.
- Document the intention of the test.
|
|
This is where `assoc-oddities-{1,2}.rs` are located, reunite them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rename `-Zparse-only`
It's a misleading name.
r? ````@estebank````
|
|
I was surprised to find that running with `-Zparse-only` only parses the
crate root file. Other files aren't parsed because that happens later
during expansion.
This commit renames the option and updates the help message to make this
clearer.
|
|
Compiletest: add proc-macro header
This adds a `proc-macro` header to simplify using proc-macros, and to reduce boilerplate. This header works similar to the `aux-build` header where you pass a path for a proc-macro to be built.
This allows the `force-host`, `no-prefer-dynamic` headers, and `crate_type` attribute to be removed. Additionally it uses `--extern` like `aux_crate` (allows implicit `extern crate` in 2018) and `--extern proc_macro` (to place in the prelude in 2018).
~~This also includes a secondary change which defaults the edition of proc-macros to 2024. This further reduces boilerplate (removing `extern crate proc_macro;`), and allows using modern Rust syntax. I was a little on the fence including this. I personally prefer it, but I can imagine it might be confusing to others.~~ EDIT: Removed
Some tests were changed so that when there is a chain of dependencies A→B→C, that the `@ proc-macro` is placed in `B` instead of `A` so that the `--extern` flag works correctly (previously it depended on `-L` to find `C`). I think this is better to make the dependencies more explicit. None of these tests looked like the were actually testing this behavior.
There is one test that had an unexplained output change: `tests/ui/macros/same-sequence-span.rs`. I do not know why it changed, but it didn't look like it was particularly important. Perhaps there was a normalization issue?
This is currently not compatible with the rustdoc `build-aux-docs` header. It can probably be fixed, I'm just not feeling motivated to do that right now.
### Implementation steps
- [x] Document this new behavior in rustc-dev-guide once we figure out the specifics. https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/2149
|
|
|
|
|
|
Done with
```bash
sd '//@ pretty-expanded.*\n' '' tests/ui/**/*.rs
```
and
```
sd '//@pretty-expanded.*\n' '' tests/ui/**/*.rs
```
|
|
Co-authored-by: Max Niederman <max@maxniederman.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trim whitespace in RemoveLet primary span
Separate `RemoveLet` span into primary span for `let` and removal suggestion span for `let `, so that primary span does not include whitespace.
Fixes: #133031
|
|
|
|
If a macro statement has been parsed after `else`, suggest a missing `if`:
```
error: expected `{`, found `falsy`
--> $DIR/else-no-if.rs:47:12
|
LL | } else falsy! {} {
| ---- ^^^^^
| |
| expected an `if` or a block after this `else`
|
help: add an `if` if this is the condition of a chained `else if` statement
|
LL | } else if falsy! {} {
| ++
```
|
|
Look at the expression that was parsed when trying to recover from a bad `if` condition to determine what was likely intended by the user beyond "maybe this was meant to be an `else` body".
```
error: expected `{`, found `map`
--> $DIR/missing-dot-on-if-condition-expression-fixable.rs:4:30
|
LL | for _ in [1, 2, 3].iter()map(|x| x) {}
| ^^^ expected `{`
|
help: you might have meant to write a method call
|
LL | for _ in [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|x| x) {}
| +
```
|
|
Separate `RemoveLet` span into primary span for `let` and removal
suggestion span for `let `, so that primary span does not include
whitespace.
Fixes: #133031
Signed-off-by: Tyrone Wu <wudevelops@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
Add Unicode block-drawing compiler output support
Add nightly-only theming support to rustc output using Unicode box
drawing characters instead of ASCII-art to draw the terminal UI.
In order to enable, the flags `-Zunstable-options=yes --error-format=human-unicode` must be passed in.
After:
```
error: foo
╭▸ test.rs:3:3
│
3 │ X0 Y0 Z0
│ ┌───╿──│──┘
│ ┌│───│──┘
│ ┏││━━━┙
│ ┃││
4 │ ┃││ X1 Y1 Z1
5 │ ┃││ X2 Y2 Z2
│ ┃│└────╿──│──┘ `Z` label
│ ┃└─────│──┤
│ ┗━━━━━━┥ `Y` is a good letter too
│ `X` is a good letter
╰╴
note: bar
╭▸ test.rs:4:3
│
4 │ ┏ X1 Y1 Z1
5 │ ┃ X2 Y2 Z2
6 │ ┃ X3 Y3 Z3
│ ┗━━━━━━━━━━┛
├ note: bar
╰ note: baz
note: qux
╭▸ test.rs:4:3
│
4 │ X1 Y1 Z1
╰╴ ━━━━━━━━
```
Before:
```
error: foo
--> test.rs:3:3
|
3 | X0 Y0 Z0
| ___^__-__-
| |___|__|
| ||___|
| |||
4 | ||| X1 Y1 Z1
5 | ||| X2 Y2 Z2
| |||____^__-__- `Z` label
| ||_____|__|
| |______| `Y` is a good letter too
| `X` is a good letter
|
note: bar
--> test.rs:4:3
|
4 | / X1 Y1 Z1
5 | | X2 Y2 Z2
6 | | X3 Y3 Z3
| |__________^
= note: bar
= note: baz
note: qux
--> test.rs:4:3
|
4 | X1 Y1 Z1
| ^^^^^^^^
```
After:
Before:
|
|
Add nightly-only theming support to rustc output using Unicode box
drawing characters instead of ASCII-art to draw the terminal UI:
After:
```
error: foo
╭▸ test.rs:3:3
│
3 │ X0 Y0 Z0
│ ┌───╿──│──┘
│ ┌│───│──┘
│ ┏││━━━┙
│ ┃││
4 │ ┃││ X1 Y1 Z1
5 │ ┃││ X2 Y2 Z2
│ ┃│└────╿──│──┘ `Z` label
│ ┃└─────│──┤
│ ┗━━━━━━┥ `Y` is a good letter too
│ `X` is a good letter
╰╴
note: bar
╭▸ test.rs:4:3
│
4 │ ┏ X1 Y1 Z1
5 │ ┃ X2 Y2 Z2
6 │ ┃ X3 Y3 Z3
│ ┗━━━━━━━━━━┛
├ note: bar
╰ note: baz
note: qux
╭▸ test.rs:4:3
│
4 │ X1 Y1 Z1
╰╴ ━━━━━━━━
```
Before:
```
error: foo
--> test.rs:3:3
|
3 | X0 Y0 Z0
| ___^__-__-
| |___|__|
| ||___|
| |||
4 | ||| X1 Y1 Z1
5 | ||| X2 Y2 Z2
| |||____^__-__- `Z` label
| ||_____|__|
| |______| `Y` is a good letter too
| `X` is a good letter
|
note: bar
--> test.rs:4:3
|
4 | / X1 Y1 Z1
5 | | X2 Y2 Z2
6 | | X3 Y3 Z3
| |__________^
= note: bar
= note: baz
note: qux
--> test.rs:4:3
|
4 | X1 Y1 Z1
| ^^^^^^^^
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use `token_descr` more in error messages
This is the first two commits from #124141, put into their own PR to get things rolling. Commit messages have the details.
r? ``@estebank``
cc ``@petrochenkov``
|
|
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
|
|
Much like the previous commit.
I think the removal of "the token" in each message is fine here. There
are many more error messages that mention tokens without saying "the
token" than those that do say it.
|
|
By using `token_descr`, as is done for many other errors, we can get
slightly better descriptions in error messages, e.g.
"macro expansion ignores token `let` and any following" becomes
"macro expansion ignores keyword `let` and any tokens following".
This will be more important once invisible delimiters start being
mentioned in error messages -- without this commit, that leads to error
messages such as "error at ``" because invisible delimiters are
pretty printed as an empty string.
|
|
|
|
Make some tweaks to extern block diagnostics
Self-explanatory. See the diagnostic changes; I hope they make them a bit more descriptive.
r? spastorino
|
|
Add suggestion for removing invalid path sep `::` in fn def
Add suggestion for removing invalid path separator `::` in function definition.
for example: `fn invalid_path_separator::<T>() {}`
fixes #130791
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
error: expected a pattern, found an expression
--> f889.rs:3:13
|
3 | let (x, y.drop()) = (1, 2); //~ ERROR
| ^^^^^^^^ not a pattern
|
= note: arbitrary expressions are not allowed in patterns: <https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-00-patterns.html>
error[E0532]: expected a pattern, found a function call
--> f889.rs:2:13
|
2 | let (x, drop(y)) = (1, 2); //~ ERROR
| ^^^^ not a tuple struct or tuple variant
|
= note: function calls are not allowed in patterns: <https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-00-patterns.html>
```
Fix #97200.
|
|
for example: `fn invalid_path_separator::<T>() {}`
fixes: #130791
|
|
|
|
|
