[1/2] Implement macro meta-variable expressions
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93545#issuecomment-1050963295
The logic behind `length`, `index` and `count` was removed but the parsing code is still present, i.e., everything is simply ignored like `ignored`.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
Treat unstable lints as unknown
This change causes unstable lints to be ignored if the `unknown_lints`
lint is allowed. To achieve this, it also changes lints to apply as soon
as they are processed. Previously, lints in the same set were processed
as a batch and then all simultaneously applied.
Implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/469
Merge `#[deprecated]` and `#[rustc_deprecated]`
The first commit makes "reason" an alias for "note" in `#[rustc_deprecated]`, while still prohibiting it in `#[deprecated]`.
The second commit changes "suggestion" to not just be a feature of `#[rustc_deprecated]`. This is placed behind the new `deprecated_suggestion` feature. This needs a tracking issue; let me know if this PR will be approved and I can create one.
The third commit is what permits `#[deprecated]` to be used when `#![feature(staged_api)]` is enabled. This isn't yet used in stdlib (only tests), as it would require duplicating all deprecation attributes until a bootstrap occurs. I intend to submit a follow-up PR that replaces all uses and removes the remaining `#[rustc_deprecated]` code after the next bootstrap.
`@rustbot` label +T-libs-api +C-feature-request +A-attributes +S-waiting-on-review
This change causes unstable lints to be ignored if the `unknown_lints`
lint is allowed. To achieve this, it also changes lints to apply as soon
as they are processed. Previously, lints in the same set were processed
as a batch and then all simultaneously applied.
Implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/469
This keeps `reason` around for the time being. This is necessary to
avoid breakage during the bootstrap process. This change, as a whole,
brings `#[rustc_deprecated]` more in line with `#[deprecated]`.
Ensure stability directives are checked in all cases
Split off #93017
Stability and deprecation were not checked in all cases, for instance if a type error happened.
This PR moves the check earlier in the pipeline to ensure the errors are emitted in all cases.
r? `@lcnr`
Update tracking issue numbers for inline assembly sub-features
The main tracking issue for inline assembly is [closed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/72016#issuecomment-1022332954), further tracking of the remaining sub-features has been moved to separate tracking issues.
This thus still makes it technically possible to enable the feature, and thus
to trigger UB without `unsafe`, but this is fine since incomplete features are
known to be potentially unsound (labelled "may not be safe").
This follows from the discussion at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93176#discussion_r799413561
Update tracking issue for `const_fn_trait_bound`
It previously pointed to #57563, the conglomerate issue for `const fn` (presumably under the feature gate `const_fn`). This tracking issue doesn't mention anything about `const_fn_trait_bound`(the only occurrence of "trait bound" is for the now-removed `?const Trait` syntax), which can be confusing to people who want to find out more about trait bounds on `const fn`s. This pull request changes the tracking issue to one meant specifically for `const_fn_trait_bound`, #93706, which can help collect information on this feature's stabilization and point users towards `const_trait_impl` if they're looking for const-in-const-contexts trait bounds.
Fixes#93679.
`````@rustbot````` modify labels +A-const-fn +F-const_trait_impl
It previously pointed to #57563, the conglomerate issue for
`const fn` (presumably under the feature gate `const_fn`).
`const_fn_trait_bounds` weren't mentioned here, so this commit changes
its tracking issue to a new one.
Add some more attribute validation
This adds some more validation for the position of attributes:
* `link` is only valid on an `extern` block
* `windows_subsystem` and `no_builtins` are only valid at the crate level
Implement `#[rustc_must_implement_one_of]` attribute
This PR adds a new attribute — `#[rustc_must_implement_one_of]` that allows changing the "minimal complete definition" of a trait. It's similar to GHC's minimal `{-# MINIMAL #-}` pragma, though `#[rustc_must_implement_one_of]` is weaker atm.
Such attribute was long wanted. It can be, for example, used in `Read` trait to make transitions to recently added `read_buf` easier:
```rust
#[rustc_must_implement_one_of(read, read_buf)]
pub trait Read {
fn read(&mut self, buf: &mut [u8]) -> Result<usize> {
let mut buf = ReadBuf::new(buf);
self.read_buf(&mut buf)?;
Ok(buf.filled_len())
}
fn read_buf(&mut self, buf: &mut ReadBuf<'_>) -> Result<()> {
default_read_buf(|b| self.read(b), buf)
}
}
impl Read for Ty0 {}
//^ This will fail to compile even though all `Read` methods have default implementations
// Both of these will compile just fine
impl Read for Ty1 {
fn read(&mut self, buf: &mut [u8]) -> Result<usize> { /* ... */ }
}
impl Read for Ty2 {
fn read_buf(&mut self, buf: &mut ReadBuf<'_>) -> Result<()> { /* ... */ }
}
```
For now, this is implemented as an internal attribute to start experimenting on the design of this feature. In the future we may want to extend it:
- Allow arbitrary requirements like `a | (b & c)`
- Allow multiple requirements like
- ```rust
#[rustc_must_implement_one_of(a, b)]
#[rustc_must_implement_one_of(c, d)]
```
- Make it appear in rustdoc documentation
- Change the syntax?
- Etc
Eventually, we should make an RFC and make this (or rather similar) attribute public.
---
I'm fairly new to compiler development and not at all sure if the implementation makes sense, but at least it passes tests :)
Matthias Krüger