Gate parser recovery via debugflag
Gate parser recovery via debugflag
Put in `-Z continue_parse_after_error`
This works by adding a method, `fn abort_if_no_parse_recovery`, to the
diagnostic handler in `syntax::errors`, and calling it after each
error is emitted in the parser.
(We might consider adding a debugflag to do such aborts in other
places where we are currently attempting recovery, such as resolve,
but I think the parser is the really important case to handle in the
face of #31994 and the parser bugs of varying degrees that were
injected by parse error recovery.)
r? @nikomatsakis
This works by adding a boolean flag, `continue_after_error`, to
`syntax::errors::Handler` that can be imperatively set to `true` or
`false` via a new `fn set_continue_after_error`.
The flag starts off true (since we generally try to recover from
compiler errors, and `Handler` is shared across all phases).
Then, during the `phase_1_parse_input`, we consult the setting of the
`-Z continue-parse-after-error` debug flag to determine whether we
should leave the flag set to `true` or should change it to `false`.
----
(We might consider adding a debugflag to do such aborts in other
places where we are currently attempting recovery, such as resolve,
but I think the parser is the really important case to handle in the
face of #31994 and the parser bugs of varying degrees that were
injected by parse error recovery.)
Prevent bumping the parser past the EOF.
Makes `Parser::bump` after EOF into an ICE, forcing callers to avoid repeated EOF bumps.
This ICE is intended to break infinite loops where EOF wasn't stopping the loop.
For example, the handling of EOF in `parse_trait_items`' recovery loop fixes#32446.
But even without this specific fix, the ICE is triggered, which helps diagnosis and UX.
This is a `[breaking-change]` for plugins authors who eagerly eat multiple EOFs.
See https://github.com/docopt/docopt.rs/pull/171 for such an example and the necessary fix.
melt the ICE when lowering an impossible range
Emit a fatal error instead of panicking when HIR lowering encounters a range with no `end` point.
This involved adding a method to wire up `LoweringContext::span_fatal`.
Fixes#32245 (cc @nodakai).
r? @nrc
Restrict constants in patterns
This implements [RFC 1445](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1445-restrict-constants-in-patterns.md). The primary change is to limit the types of constants used in patterns to those that *derive* `Eq` (note that implementing `Eq` is not sufficient). This has two main effects:
1. Floating point constants are linted, and will eventually be disallowed. This is because floating point constants do not implement `Eq` but only `PartialEq`. This check replaces the existing special case code that aimed to detect the use of `NaN`.
2. Structs and enums must derive `Eq` to be usable within a match.
This is a [breaking-change]: if you encounter a problem, you are most likely using a constant in an expression where the type of the constant is some struct that does not currently implement
`Eq`. Something like the following:
```rust
struct SomeType { ... }
const SOME_CONST: SomeType = ...;
match foo {
SOME_CONST => ...
}
```
The easiest and most future compatible fix is to annotate the type in question with `#[derive(Eq)]` (note that merely *implementing* `Eq` is not enough, it must be *derived*):
```rust
struct SomeType { ... }
const SOME_CONST: SomeType = ...;
match foo {
SOME_CONST => ...
}
```
Another good option is to rewrite the match arm to use an `if` condition (this is also particularly good for floating point types, which implement `PartialEq` but not `Eq`):
```rust
match foo {
c if c == SOME_CONST => ...
}
```
Finally, a third alternative is to tag the type with `#[structural_match]`; but this is not recommended, as the attribute is never expected to be stabilized. Please see RFC #1445 for more details.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/31434
r? @pnkfelix
End-less ranges (`a...`) don't parse but bad syntax extensions could
conceivably produce them. Unbounded ranges (`...`) do parse and are
caught here.
The other panics in HIR lowering are all for unexpanded macros, which
cannot be constructed by bad syntax extensions.
convert 99.9% of `try!`s to `?`s
The first commit is an automated conversion using the [untry] tool and the following command:
```
$ find -name '*.rs' -type f | xargs untry
```
at the root of the Rust repo.
[untry]: https://github.com/japaric/untry
cc @rust-lang/lang @alexcrichton @brson
Automated conversion using the untry tool [1] and the following command:
```
$ find -name '*.rs' -type f | xargs untry
```
at the root of the Rust repo.
[1]: https://github.com/japaric/untry
syntax: impl ToTokens for P<ast::ImplItem>
I'm working on updating zinc for latest rust, and it appears that I need this impl[0].
More generally, I realise that libsyntax is "Whatever the compiler team needs to build a compiler", but should I just open a PR fleshing this out for all types?
https://github.com/hackndev/zinc/blob/master/ioreg/src/builder/setter.rs#L194-L197
syntax: Always pretty print a newline after doc comments
Before this patch, code that had a doc comment as the first
line, as in:
```rust
/// Foo
struct Foo;
```
Was pretty printed into:
```rust
///Foostruct Foo;
```
This makes sure that that there is always a trailing newline
after a doc comment.
Closes#31722
Make errors for unnecessary visibility qualifiers consistent
This PR refactors away `syntax::parse::parser::ParsePub` so that unnecessary visibility qualifiers on variant fields are reported not by the parser but by `privacy::SanePrivacyVisitor` (thanks to @petrochenkov's drive-by improvements in #31919).
r? @nikomatsakis
implement the `?` operator
The `?` postfix operator is sugar equivalent to the try! macro, but is more amenable to chaining:
`File::open("foo")?.metadata()?.is_dir()`.
`?` is accepted on any *expression* that can return a `Result`, e.g. `x()?`, `y!()?`, `{z}?`,
`(w)?`, etc. And binds more tightly than unary operators, e.g. `!x?` is parsed as `!(x?)`.
cc #31436
---
cc @aturon @eddyb
The `?` postfix operator is sugar equivalent to the try! macro, but is more amenable to chaining:
`File::open("foo")?.metadata()?.is_dir()`.
`?` is accepted on any *expression* that can return a `Result`, e.g. `x()?`, `y!()?`, `{z}?`,
`(w)?`, etc. And binds more tightly than unary operators, e.g. `!x?` is parsed as `!(x?)`.
cc #31436
Before this patch, code that had a doc comment as the first
line, as in:
```rust
/// Foo
struct Foo;
```
Was pretty printed into:
```rust
///Foostruct Foo;
```
This makes sure that that there is always a trailing newline
after a doc comment.
Closes#31722
This PR implements [RFC 1192](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1192-inclusive-ranges.md), which is triple-dot syntax for inclusive range expressions. The new stuff is behind two feature gates (one for the syntax and one for the std::ops types). This replaces the deprecated functionality in std::iter. Along the way I simplified the desugaring for all ranges.
This is my first contribution to rust which changes more than one character outside of a test or comment, so please review carefully! Some of the individual commit messages have more of my notes. Also thanks for putting up with my dumb questions in #rust-internals.
- For implementing `std::ops::RangeInclusive`, I took @Stebalien's suggestion from https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1192#issuecomment-137864421. It seemed to me to make the implementation easier and increase type safety. If that stands, the RFC should be amended to avoid confusion.
- I also kind of like @glaebhoerl's [idea](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1254#issuecomment-147815299), which is unified inclusive/exclusive range syntax something like `x>..=y`. We can experiment with this while everything is behind a feature gate.
- There are a couple of FIXMEs left (see the last commit). I didn't know what to do about `RangeArgument` and I haven't added `Index` impls yet. Those should be discussed/finished before merging.
cc @Gankro since you [complained](https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/3xkfro/what_happened_to_inclusive_ranges/cy5j0yq)
cc #27777#30877rust-lang/rust#1192rust-lang/rfcs#1254
relevant to #28237 (tracking issue)
Manish Goregaokar