On `format!()` arg count mismatch provide extra info
When positional width and precision formatting flags are present in a
formatting string that has an argument count mismatch, provide extra
information pointing at them making it easiser to understand where the
problem may lay:
```
error: 4 positional arguments in format string, but there are 3 arguments
--> $DIR/ifmt-bad-arg.rs:78:15
|
LL | println!("{} {:.*} {}", 1, 3.2, 4);
| ^^ ^^--^ ^^ --- this parameter corresponds to the precision flag
| |
| this precision flag adds an extra required argument at position 1, which is why there are 4 arguments expected
|
= note: positional arguments are zero-based
= note: for information about formatting flags, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/fmt/index.html
error: 4 positional arguments in format string, but there are 3 arguments
--> $DIR/ifmt-bad-arg.rs:81:15
|
LL | println!("{} {:07$.*} {}", 1, 3.2, 4);
| ^^ ^^-----^ ^^ --- this parameter corresponds to the precision flag
| | |
| | this precision flag adds an extra required argument at position 1, which is why there are 4 arguments expected
| this width flag expects an `usize` argument at position 7, but there are 3 arguments
|
= note: positional arguments are zero-based
= note: for information about formatting flags, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/fmt/index.html
error: invalid reference to positional argument 7 (there are 3 arguments)
--> $DIR/ifmt-bad-arg.rs:84:18
|
LL | println!("{} {:07$} {}", 1, 3.2, 4);
| ^^^--^
| |
| this width flag expects an `usize` argument at position 7, but there are 3 arguments
|
= note: positional arguments are zero-based
= note: for information about formatting flags, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/fmt/index.html
```
Fix#49384.
When positional width and precision formatting flags are present in a
formatting string that has an argument count mismatch, provide extra
information pointing at them making it easiser to understand where the
problem may lay:
```
error: 4 positional arguments in format string, but there are 3 arguments
--> $DIR/ifmt-bad-arg.rs:78:15
|
LL | println!("{} {:.*} {}", 1, 3.2, 4);
| ^^ ^^--^ ^^ --- this parameter corresponds to the precision flag
| |
| this precision flag adds an extra required argument at position 1, which is why there are 4 arguments expected
|
= note: positional arguments are zero-based
= note: for information about formatting flags, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/fmt/index.html
error: 4 positional arguments in format string, but there are 3 arguments
--> $DIR/ifmt-bad-arg.rs:81:15
|
LL | println!("{} {:07$.*} {}", 1, 3.2, 4);
| ^^ ^^-----^ ^^ --- this parameter corresponds to the precision flag
| | |
| | this precision flag adds an extra required argument at position 1, which is why there are 4 arguments expected
| this width flag expects an `usize` argument at position 7, but there are 3 arguments
|
= note: positional arguments are zero-based
= note: for information about formatting flags, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/fmt/index.html
error: 3 positional arguments in format string, but there are 3 arguments
--> $DIR/ifmt-bad-arg.rs:84:15
|
LL | println!("{} {:07$} {}", 1, 3.2, 4);
| ^^ ^^---^ ^^
| |
| this width flag expects an `usize` argument at position 7, but there are 3 arguments
|
= note: positional arguments are zero-based
= note: for information about formatting flags, visit https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/fmt/index.html
```
Instead of
```
mod allocator_abi { /* methods */ }
```
we now generate
```
const _: () = { /* methods */ }
```
and use `std_path` for paths referring to standard library entities.
This way we no longer need to generate `use` and `extern crate` imports, and `#[global_allocator]` starts working inside unnamed blocks.
add rustc_private as a proper language feature gate
At the moment, `rustc_private` as a (library) feature exists by
accident: `char::is_xid_start`, `char::is_xid_continue` methods in
libcore define it.
cc https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/How.20to.20declare.20new.20langauge.20feature.3F
I don't know if this is at all reasonable, but at least tests seem to pass locally. That probably means that we can remove/rename to something more resonable the feature in libcore in the next release?
Specific error for positional args after named args in `format!()`
When writing positional arguments after named arguments in the
`format!()` and `println!()` macros, provide a targeted diagnostic.
Follow up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/57522/files#r247278885
Creating a fresh expansion and immediately generating a span from it is the most common scenario.
Also avoid allocating `allow_internal_unstable` lists for derive markers repeatedly.
And rename `ExpnInfo::with_unstable` to `ExpnInfo::allow_unstable`, seems to be a better fitting name.
The expansions were created to allow unstable things inside `#[test_case/test/bench]`, but that's not a proper way to do that.
Put the required `allow_internal_unstable`s into the macros' properties instead.
Now that procedural macros no longer link transitively to libsyntax,
this shouldn't be needed any more! This commit is an experiment in
removing all dynamic libraries from rustc except for librustc_driver
itself. Let's see how far we can get with that!
Implement another internal lints
cc #49509
This adds ~~two~~ one internal lint~~s~~:
1. LINT_PASS_IMPL_WITHOUT_MACRO: Make sure, that the `{declare,impl}_lint_pass` macro is used to implement lint passes. cc #59669
2. ~~USAGE_OF_TYCTXT_AND_SPAN_ARGS: item 2 on the list in #49509~~
~~With 2. I wasn't sure, if this lint should be applied everywhere. That means a careful review of 0955835 would be great. Also 73fb9b4 allows this lint on some functions. Should I also apply this lint there?~~
TODO (not directly relevant for review):
- [ ] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/59316#discussion_r280186517 (not sure yet, if this works or how to query for `rustc_private`, since it's not in [`Features`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/syntax/feature_gate/struct.Features.html) 🤔 cc @eddyb)
- [x] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61735#discussion_r292389870
- [x] Check explicitly for the `{declare,impl}_lint_pass!` macros
r? @oli-obk
The errors are either:
- The meta-variable used in the right-hand side is not bound (or defined) in the
left-hand side.
- The meta-variable used in the right-hand side does not repeat with the same
kleene operator as its binder in the left-hand side. Either it does not repeat
enough, or it uses a different operator somewhere.
This change should have no semantic impact.
Improve the explicit_outlives_requirements lint
* Don't use Strings to compare parameters
* Extend the lint to lifetime bounds
* Extend the lint to enums and unions
* Use the correct span for where clauses in tuple structs
* Try to early-out where possible
* Remove unnecessary bounds in rustc crates
Mazdak Farrokhzad