resolve: Split extern prelude into two scopes
One scope for `extern crate` items and another for `--extern` options, with the former shadowing the latter.
If in a single scope some things can overwrite other things, especially with ad hoc restrictions like `MacroExpandedExternCrateCannotShadowExternArguments`, then it's not really a single scope.
So this PR splits `Scope::ExternPrelude` into two cleaner scopes.
This is similar to how https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144131 splits module scope into two scopes for globs and non-globs, but simpler.
Handle macros with multiple kinds, and improve errors
(I recommend reviewing this commit-by-commit.)
Switch to a bitflags `MacroKinds` to support macros with more than one kind
Review everything that uses `MacroKind`, and switch anything that could refer to more than one kind to use `MacroKinds`.
Add a new `SyntaxExtensionKind::MacroRules` for `macro_rules!` macros, using the concrete `MacroRulesMacroExpander` type, and have it track which kinds it can handle. Eliminate the separate optional `attr_ext`, now that a `SyntaxExtension` can handle multiple macro kinds.
This also avoids the need to downcast when calling methods on `MacroRulesMacroExpander`, such as `get_unused_rule`.
Integrate macro kind checking into name resolution's `sub_namespace_match`, so that we only find a macro if it's the right type, and eliminate the special-case hack for attributes.
This allows detecting and report macro kind mismatches early, and more precisely, improving various error messages. In particular, this eliminates the case in `failed_to_match_macro` to check for a function-like invocation of a macro with no function-like rules.
Instead, macro kind mismatches now result in an unresolved macro, and we detect this case in `unresolved_macro_suggestions`, which now carefully distinguishes between a kind mismatch and other errors.
This also handles cases of forward-referenced attributes and cyclic attributes.
----
In this PR, I've minimally fixed up `rustdoc` so that it compiles and passes tests. This is just the minimal necessary fixes to handle the switch to `MacroKinds`, and it only works for macros that don't actually have multiple kinds. This will panic (with a `todo!`) if it encounters a macro with multiple kinds.
rustdoc needs further fixes to handle macros with multiple kinds, and to handle attributes and derive macros that aren't proc macros. I'd appreciate some help from a rustdoc expert on that.
----
r? ````````@petrochenkov````````
This eliminates the case in `failed_to_match_macro` to check for a
function-like invocation of a macro with no function-like rules.
Instead, macro kind mismatches now result in an unresolved macro, and we
detect this case in `unresolved_macro_suggestions`, which now carefully
distinguishes between a kind mismatch and other errors.
This also handles cases of forward-referenced attributes and cyclic
attributes.
Expand test coverage to include all of these cases.
Rehome 32 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/`
rust-lang/rust#143902 divided into smaller, easier to review chunks.
Part of rust-lang/rust#133895
Methodology:
1. Refer to the previously written `tests/ui/SUMMARY.md`
2. Find an appropriate category for the test, using the original issue thread and the test contents.
3. Add the issue URL at the bottom (not at the top, as that would mess up stderr line numbers)
4. Rename the tests to make their purpose clearer
Inspired by the methodology that `@Kivooeo` was using.
r? `@jieyouxu`
Start reporting future breakage for `ILL_FORMED_ATTRIBUTE_INPUT` in dependencies
This has been a warn lint since early 2019 and a deny-by-default lint since late 2019.
We're currently transitioning some of the cases where this lint is being produced to a hard error (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143607https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143808 and more)
So let's report this lint in all dependencies for the remaining attributes
r? `@traviscross`
`@rustbot` labels +I-lang-nominated +T-lang -T-compiler
cc `@jdonszelmann`
(Separate question: Why does the "Future incompatibility report" only trigger if `report_in_deps` is true, even if the future incompatibility happens in the same crate, is this correct?)
This also needs a crater run, but I don't have permissions to trigger this
`tests/ui/issues/`: The Issues Strike Back [4/N]
Some `tests/ui/issues/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/issues/`. Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133895.
r? ````````@jieyouxu````````
Upgrade semicolon_in_expressions_from_macros from warn to deny
This is already warn-by-default, and a future compatibility warning (FCW) that warns in dependencies. Upgrade it to deny-by-default, as the next step towards hard error.
Per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79813#issuecomment-3109105631
`panic!` does not print any identifying information for threads that are
unnamed. However, in many cases, the thread ID can be determined.
This changes the panic message from something like this:
thread '<unnamed>' panicked at src/main.rs:3:5:
explicit panic
To something like this:
thread '<unnamed>' (0xff9bf) panicked at src/main.rs:3:5:
explicit panic
Stack overflow messages are updated as well.
This change applies to both named and unnamed threads. The ID printed is
the OS integer thread ID rather than the Rust thread ID, which should
also be what debuggers print.
Rehome 21 `tests/ui/issues/` tests to other subdirectories under `tests/ui/`
rust-lang/rust#143902 divided into smaller, easier to review chunks.
Part of rust-lang/rust#133895
Methodology:
1. Refer to the previously written `tests/ui/SUMMARY.md`
2. Find an appropriate category for the test, using the original issue thread and the test contents.
3. Add the issue URL at the bottom (not at the top, as that would mess up stderr line numbers)
4. Rename the tests to make their purpose clearer
Inspired by the methodology that ``@Kivooeo`` was using.
r? ``@jieyouxu``
```
error[E0433]: failed to resolve: could not find `doesnt_exist` in `inner`
--> $DIR/diagnostics-cross-crate.rs:18:23
|
LL | cfged_out::inner::doesnt_exist::hello();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ could not find `doesnt_exist` in `inner`
|
note: found an item that was configured out
--> $DIR/auxiliary/cfged_out.rs:6:13
|
LL | #[cfg(false)]
| ----- the item is gated here
LL | pub mod doesnt_exist {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Use a visitor to collect *all* items (including those nested) that were stripped behind a `cfg` condition.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find function `f` in this scope
--> $DIR/nested-cfg-attrs.rs:4:13
|
LL | fn main() { f() }
| ^ not found in this scope
|
note: found an item that was configured out
--> $DIR/nested-cfg-attrs.rs:2:4
|
LL | fn f() {}
| ^
note: the item is gated here
--> $DIR/nested-cfg-attrs.rs:1:35
|
LL | #[cfg_attr(all(), cfg_attr(all(), cfg(FALSE)))]
| ^^^^^^^^^^
```
Use `splice` to avoid shifting the other items twice.
Put `extern crate std;` first so it's already resolved when we resolve `::std::prelude::rust_20XX`.
Stop compilation early if macro expansion failed
Fixesrust-lang/rust#116180.
So there isn't really a type that is central for macro expansion and some errors are actually emitted (because the resolution happens after the expansion I suppose) after the expansion pass (like "not found macro"). Sometimes, errors are only emitted on the second "try" (to improve error output). So I couldn't reach a similar solution than what was done in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133937 and suggested by ````@estebank```` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116180#issuecomment-3109468922. But maybe I missed something?
So in the end, I realized that there is method called every time (except one, described below) a macro error is actually emitted: `ExtCtxt::trace_macros_diag`. Considering I updated what it did, I renamed it into `macro_error_and_trace_macros_diag` to better reflect it.
There is only one call of `trace_macros_diag` which isn't reporting an error but just used for `macro_trace` feature, so I kept it as is.
r? ````@oli-obk````
don't link to the nightly version of the Edition Guide in stable lints
As reported in rust-lang/rust#143557 for `rust_2024_incompatible_pat`, most future-Edition-incompatibility lints link to the nightly version of the Edition Guide; the lints were written before their respective Editions (and their guides) stabilized. But now that Rusts 2021 and 2024 are stable, these lints are emitted on stable versions of the compiler, where it makes more sense to present users with links that don't say "nightly" in them.
This does not change the link for `rust_2024_incompatible_pat`. That's handled in rust-lang/rust#144006.
This is already warn-by-default, and a future compatibility warning
(FCW) that warns in dependencies. Upgrade it to deny-by-default, as the
next step towards hard error.
make `cfg_select` a builtin macro
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115585
This parses mostly the same as the `macro cfg_select` version, except:
1. wrapping in double brackets is no longer supported (or needed): `cfg_select {{ /* ... */ }}` is now rejected.
2. in an expression context, the rhs is no longer wrapped in a block, so that this now works:
```rust
fn main() {
println!(cfg_select! {
unix => { "foo" }
_ => { "bar" }
});
}
```
3. a single wildcard rule is now supported: `cfg_select { _ => 1 }` now works
I've also added an error if none of the rules evaluate to true, and warnings for any arms that follow the `_` wildcard rule.
cc `@traviscross` if I'm missing any feature that should/should not be included
r? `@petrochenkov` for the macro logic details
`tests/ui`: A New Order [27/N]
> [!NOTE]
>
> Intermediate commits are intended to help review, but will be squashed prior to merge.
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? ``@tgross35``
`tests/ui`: A New Order [23/N]
> [!NOTE]
>
> Intermediate commits are intended to help review, but will be squashed prior to merge.
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? ``@tgross35``
Give a more user-friendly diagnostic about the following:
* Trailing tokens within braces, e.g. `${foo() extra}`
* Missing parentheses, e.g. `${foo}`
* Incorrect number of arguments, with a hint about correct usage.
Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- rust-lang/rust#131923 (Derive `Copy` and `Hash` for `IntErrorKind`)
- rust-lang/rust#138340 (Remove some unsized tuple impls now that we don't support unsizing tuples anymore)
- rust-lang/rust#141219 (Change `{Box,Arc,Rc,Weak}::into_raw` to only work with `A = Global`)
- rust-lang/rust#142212 (bootstrap: validate `rust.codegen-backends` & `target.<triple>.codegen-backends`)
- rust-lang/rust#142237 (Detect more cases of unused_parens around types)
- rust-lang/rust#142964 (Attribute rework: a parser for single attributes without arguments)
- rust-lang/rust#143070 (Rewrite `macro_rules!` parser to not use the MBE engine itself)
- rust-lang/rust#143235 (Assemble const bounds via normal item bounds in old solver too)
- rust-lang/rust#143261 (Feed `explicit_predicates_of` instead of `predicates_of`)
- rust-lang/rust#143276 (loop match: handle opaque patterns)
- rust-lang/rust#143306 (Add `track_caller` attributes to trace origin of Clippy lints)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
try-job: aarch64-apple
try-job: x86_64-msvc-1
try-job: x86_64-gnu
try-job: dist-i586-gnu-i586-i686-musl
try-job: test-various
Rewrite `macro_rules!` parser to not use the MBE engine itself
The `macro_rules!` parser was written to match the series of rules using the macros-by-example (MBE) engine and a hand-written equivalent of the left-hand side of a MBE macro. This was complex to read, difficult to extend, and produced confusing error messages. Because it was using the MBE engine, any parse failure would be reported as if some macro was being applied to the `macro_rules!` invocation itself; for instance, errors would talk about "macro invocation", "macro arguments", and "macro call", when they were actually about the macro *definition*.
And in practice, the `macro_rules!` parser only used the MBE engine to extract the left-hand side and right-hand side of each rule as a token tree, and then parsed the rest using a separate parser.
Rewrite it to parse the series of rules using a simple loop, instead. This makes it more extensible in the future, and improves error messages. For instance, omitting a semicolon between rules will result in "expected `;`" and "unexpected token", rather than the confusing "no rules expected this token in macro call".
This work was greatly aided by pair programming with Vincenzo Palazzo (`@vincenzopalazzo)` and Eric Holk (`@eholk).`
For review, I recommend reading the two commits separately.
Remove let_chains unstable feature
Per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53667#issuecomment-3016742982 (but then I also noticed rust-lang/rust#140722)
This replaces the feature gate with a parser error that says let chains require 2024.
A lot of tests were using the unstable feature. I either added edition:2024 to the test or split out the parts that require 2024.
Start moving wf checking away from HIR
I'm trying to only access the HIR in the error path. My hope is that once we move significant portions of wfcheck off HIR that incremental will be able to cache wfcheck queries significantly better.
I think I am reaching a blocker because we normally need to provide good spans to `ObligationCause`, so that the trait solver can report good errors. In some cases I have been able to use bad spans and improve them depending on the `ObligationCauseCode` (by loading HIR in the case where we actually want to error). To scale that further we'll likely need to remove spans from the `ObligationCause` entirely (leaving it to some variants of `ObligationCauseCode` to have a span when they can't recompute the information later). Unsure this is the right approach, but we've already been using it. I will create an MCP about it, but that should not affect this PR, which is fairly limited in where it does those kind of tricks.
Especially https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/commit/b862d8828e375ab8c128a9d9e93bf98b77cb5928 is interesting here, because I think it improves spans in all cases
bors