Do not recover when parsing stmt in cfg-eval.
`parse_stmt` does recovery on its own. When parsing the statement fails, we always get `Ok(None)` instead of an `Err` variant with the diagnostic that we can emit.
To avoid this behaviour, we need to opt-out of recovery for cfg_eval.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105228
Error message all end up passing into a function as an `impl
Into<{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage>`. If an error message is creatd as
`&format("...")` that means we allocate a string (in the `format!`
call), then take a reference, and then clone (allocating again) the
reference to produce the `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage`, which is silly.
This commit removes the leading `&` from a lot of these cases. This
means the original `String` is moved into the
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage`, avoiding the double allocations. This
requires changing some function argument types from `&str` to `String`
(when all arguments are `String`) or `impl
Into<{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage>` (when some arguments are `String` and
some are `&str`).
Implement builtin # syntax and use it for offset_of!(...)
Add `builtin #` syntax to the parser, as well as a generic infrastructure to support both item and expression position builtin syntaxes. The PR also uses this infrastructure for the implementation of the `offset_of!` macro, added by #106934.
cc `@petrochenkov` `@DrMeepster`
cc #110680 `builtin #` tracking issue
cc #106655 `offset_of!` tracking issue
add hint for =< as <=
Adds a compiler hint for when `=<` is typed instead of `<=`
Example hint:
```rust
fn foo() {
if 1 =< 3 {
println!("Hello, World!");
}
}
```
```
error: expected type, found `3`
--> main.rs:2:13
|
2 | if 1 =< 3 {
| -- ^ expected type
| |
| help: did you mean: `<=`
```
This PR only emits the suggestion if there is no space between the `=` and `<`. This hopefully narrows the scope of when this error is emitted, however this still allows this error to be emitted in cases such as this:
```
error: expected expression, found `;`
--> main.rs:2:18
|
2 | if 1 =< [i32;; 3]>::hello() {
| -- ^ expected expression
| |
| help: did you mean: `<=`
```
Which could be a good reason not to merge since I haven't been able to think of any other ways of narrowing the scope of this diagnostic.
closes#111128
Implement negative bounds for internal testing purposes
Implements partial support the `!` negative polarity on trait bounds. This is incomplete, but should allow us to at least be able to play with the feature.
Not even gonna consider them as a public-facing feature, but I'm implementing them because would've been nice to have in UI tests, for example in #110671.
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
My type ascription
Oh rip it out
Ah
If you think we live too much then
You can sacrifice diagnostics
Don't mix your garbage
Into my syntax
So many weird hacks keep diagnostics alive
Yet I don't even step outside
So many bad diagnostics keep tyasc alive
Yet tyasc doesn't even bother to survive!
Tweak await span to not contain dot
Fixes a discrepancy between method calls and await expressions where the latter are desugared to have a span that *contains* the dot (i.e. `.await`) but method call identifiers don't contain the dot. This leads to weird suggestions suggestions in borrowck -- see linked issue.
Fixes#110761
This mostly touches a bunch of tests to tighten their `await` span.
Add `rustc_fluent_macro` to decouple fluent from `rustc_macros`
Fluent, with all the icu4x it brings in, takes quite some time to compile. `fluent_messages!` is only needed in further downstream rustc crates, but is blocking more upstream crates like `rustc_index`. By splitting it out, we allow `rustc_macros` to be compiled earlier, which speeds up `x check compiler` by about 5 seconds (and even more after the needless dependency on `serde_json` is removed from `rustc_data_structures`).
Fluent, with all the icu4x it brings in, takes quite some time to
compile. `fluent_messages!` is only needed in further downstream rustc
crates, but is blocking more upstream crates like `rustc_index`. By
splitting it out, we allow `rustc_macros` to be compiled earlier, which
speeds up `x check compiler` by about 5 seconds (and even more after the
needless dependency on `serde_json` is removed from
`rustc_data_structures`).
Dylan DPC