`rustc_error_messages` currently depends on
`rustc_ast`/`rustc_ast_pretty`. This is odd, because
`rustc_error_messages` feels like a very low-level module but
`rustc_ast`/`rustc_ast_pretty` do not.
The reason is that a few AST types impl `IntoDiagArg` via
pretty-printing. `rustc_error_messages` can define `IntoDiagArg` and
then impl it for the AST types. But if we invert the dependency we hit
a problem with the orphan rule: `rustc_ast` must impl `IntoDiagArg`
for the AST types, but that requires calling pretty-printing code which
is in `rustc_ast_pretty`, a downstream crate.
This commit avoids this problem by just removing the `IntoDiagArg` impls
for these AST types. There aren't that many of them, and we can just use
`String` in the relevant error structs and use the pretty printer in the
downstream crates that construct the error structs. There are plenty of
existing examples where `String` is used in error structs.
There is now no dependency between `rustc_ast*` and
`rustc_error_messages`.
Syntactically reject tuple index shorthands in struct patterns to fix a correctness regression
Split out of PR rust-lang/rust#154492. This fixes a correctness regression introduced in PR rust-lang/rust#81235 from 2021. Crater was run in my other PR and didn't report any real regressions (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/154492#issuecomment-4187544786); a rerun has been issued for a few spurious builds (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/154492#issuecomment-4237077272) but I'm certain it won't find anything either.
This is a theoretical breaking change that doesn't need any T-lang input IMHO since it's such a minute, niche and crystal clear bug that's not worth bothering them with (such a decision is not unprecedented). I'm adding it to the compatibility section of the release notes as is customary.
The Reference doesn't need updating since it didn't adopt this bug and thus accurately describes this part of the grammar as it used to be before 2021-02-23 and as it's meant to be.
The majority of the diff is doc comment additions & necessary UI test restructurings.
Change keyword order for `impl` restrictions
Based on rust-lang/rust#155222, this PR reorders keywords in trait definitions to group restrictions with visibility. It changes the order from `pub(...) const unsafe auto impl(...) trait Foo {...}` to `pub(...) impl(...) const unsafe auto trait Foo {...}`.
Tracking issue for restrictions: rust-lang/rust#105077
r? @Urgau
cc @jhpratt
Add macro matcher for `guard` fragment specifier
Tracking issue #153104
This PR implements a new `guard` macro matcher to match `if-let` guards (specifically [`MatchArmGuard`](https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/blob/50a1075e879be75aeec436252c84eef0fad489f4/src/expressions/match-expr.md#match-guards)). In the upcoming PR, we can use this new matcher in the `matches!` and `assert_matches!` macros to support their use with `if-let` guards. (see #152313)
The original `Expr` used to represent a guard has been wrapped in a new `Guard` type, allowing us to carry the span information of the leading `if` keyword. However, it might be even better to include the `if` keyword in the `Guard` type as well? I've left a FIXME comment in the code.
Start migrating `DecorateDiagCompat::Builtin` items to `DecorateDiagCompat::Dynamic`
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/153099.
End goal being to completely remove the two steps currently required by `DecorateDiagCompat::Builtin` and remove duplicated types.
r? @JonathanBrouwer
It's defined in `rustc_span::source_map` which doesn't make any sense
because it has nothing to do with source maps. This commit moves it to
the crate root, a more sensible spot for something this basic.
Parse `impl` restrictions
This PR implements the parsing logic for `impl` restrictions (e.g., `pub impl(crate) trait Foo {}`) as proposed in [RFC 3323](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3323-restrictions.html).
As the first step of the RFC implementation, this PR focuses strictly on the parsing phase. The new syntax is guarded by the `#![feature(impl_restriction)]` feature gate.
This implementation basically follows the pattern used in rust-lang/rust#141754.
r? @jhpratt
Don’t report missing fields in struct exprs with syntax errors.
@Noratrieb [told me](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/custom-cargo-command-to-show-only-errors-avoid-setting-rustflags-every-time/24032/7?u=kpreid) that “it is a bug if this recovery causes follow-up errors that would not be there if the user fixed the first error.” So, here’s a contribution to hide a follow-up error that annoyed me recently.
Specifically, if the user writes a struct literal with a syntax error, such as
```rust
StructName { foo: 1 bar: 2 }
```
the compiler will no longer report that the field `bar` is missing in addition to the syntax error.
This is my first time attempting any change to the parser or AST; please let me know if there is a better way to do what I’ve done here. ~~The part I’m least happy with is the blast radius of adding another field to `hir::ExprKind::Struct`, but this seems to be in line with the style of the rest of the code. (If this were my own code, I would consider changing `hir::ExprKind::Struct` to a nested struct, the same way it is in `ast::ExprKind`.)~~ The additional information is now stored as an additional variant of `ast::StructRest` / `hir::StructTailExpr`.
**Note to reviewers:** I recommend reviewing each commit separately, and in the case of the first one with indentation changes ignored.
This adds a variant `NoneWithError` to AST and HIR representations of
the “rest” or “tail”, which is currently always treated identically to
the `None` variant.
Don't allow subdiagnostic to use variables from their parent
Tangentially related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/151366
This is PR 1/2 for structured diagnostics, will do the unstructured ones next. After the second PR I will be able to remove some code that should compensate for this PR being positive.
Regardless of this PR having a positive diff, I feel that subdiagnostics being able to use variables from their parent is very confusing, so this is for the better,.
r? @jdonszelmann
add field representing types
*[View all comments](https://triagebot.infra.rust-lang.org/gh-comments/rust-lang/rust/pull/152730)*
> [!NOTE]
> This is a rewrite of #146307 by using a lang item instead of a custom `TyKind`. We still need a `hir::TyKind::FieldOf` variant, because resolving the field name cannot be done before HIR construction. The advantage of doing it this way is that we don't need to make any changes to types after HIR (including symbol mangling). At the very beginning of this feature implementation, I tried to do it using a lang item, but then quickly abandoned the approach, because at that time I was still intending to support nested fields.
Here is a [range-diff](https://triagebot.infra.rust-lang.org/gh-range-diff/rust-lang/rust/605f49b27444a738ea4032cb77e3bdc4eb811bab..d15f5052095b3549111854a2555dd7026b0a729e/605f49b27444a738ea4032cb77e3bdc4eb811bab..f5f42d1e03495dbaa23671c46b15fccddeb3492f) between the two PRs
---
# Add Field Representing Types (FRTs)
This PR implements the first step of the field projection lang experiment (Tracking Issue: rust-lang/rust#145383). Field representing types (FRTs) are a new kind of type. They can be named through the use of the `field_of!` macro with the first argument being the type and the second the name of the field (or variant and field in the case of an enum). No nested fields are supported.
FRTs natively implement the `Field` trait that's also added in this PR. It exposes information about the field such as the type of the field, the type of the base (i.e. the type that contains the field) and the offset within that base type. Only fields of non-packed structs are supported, fields of enums an unions have unique types for each field, but those do not implement the `Field` trait.
This PR was created in collaboration with @dingxiangfei2009, it wouldn't have been possible without him, so huge thanks for mentoring me!
I updated my library solution for field projections to use the FRTs from `core` instead of creating my own using the hash of the name of the field. See the [Rust-for-Linux/field-projection `lang-experiment` branch](https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/field-projection/tree/lang-experiment).
## API added to `core::field`
```rust
pub unsafe trait Field {
type Base;
type Type;
const OFFSET: usize;
}
pub macro field_of($Container:ty, $($fields:expr)+ $(,)?);
```
Along with a perma-unstable type that the compiler uses in the expansion of the macro:
```rust
#[unstable(feature = "field_representing_type_raw", issue = "none")]
pub struct FieldRepresentingType<T: ?Sized, const VARIANT: u32, const FIELD: u32> {
_phantom: PhantomData<T>,
}
```
## Explanation of Field Representing Types (FRTs)
FRTs are used for compile-time & trait-level reflection for fields of structs & tuples. Each struct & tuple has a unique compiler-generated type nameable through the `field_of!` macro. This type natively contains information about the field such as the outermost container, type of the field and its offset. Users may implement additional traits on these types in order to record custom information (for example a crate may define a [`PinnableField` trait](https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/field-projection/blob/lang-experiment/src/marker.rs#L9-L23) that records whether the field is structurally pinned).
They are the foundation of field projections, a general operation that's generic over the fields of a struct. This genericism needs to be expressible in the trait system. FRTs make this possible, since an operation generic over fields can just be a function with a generic parameter `F: Field`.
> [!NOTE]
> The approach of field projections has changed considerably since this PR was opened. In the end we might not need FRTs, so this API is highly experimental.
FRTs should act as though they were defined as `struct MyStruct_my_field<StructGenerics>;` next to the struct. So it should be local to the crate defining the struct so that one can implement any trait for the FRT from that crate. The `Field` traits should be implemented by the compiler & populated with correct information (`unsafe` code needs to be able to rely on them being correct).
## TODOs
There are some `FIXME(FRTs)` scattered around the code:
- Diagnostics for `field_of!` can be improved
- `tests/ui/field_representing_types/nonexistent.rs`
- `tests/ui/field_representing_types/non-struct.rs`
- `tests/ui/field_representing_types/offset.rs`
- `tests/ui/field_representing_types/not-field-if-packed.rs`
- `tests/ui/field_representing_types/invalid.rs`
- Simple type alias already seem to work, but might need some extra work in `compiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/hir_ty_lowering/mod.rs`
r? @oli-obk
Jacob Pratt