Track span of function in method calls, and use this in #[track_caller]
Fixes#69977
When we parse a chain of method calls like `foo.a().b().c()`, each
`MethodCallExpr` gets assigned a span that starts at the beginning of
the call chain (`foo`). While this is useful for diagnostics, it means
that `Location::caller` will return the same location for every call
in a call chain.
This PR makes us separately record the span of the function name and
arguments for a method call (e.g. `b()` in `foo.a().b().c()`). This
`Span` is passed through HIR lowering and MIR building to
`TerminatorKind::Call`, where it is used in preference to
`Terminator.source_info.span` when determining `Location::caller`.
This new span is also useful for diagnostics where we want to emphasize
a particular method call - for an example, see
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/72389#discussion_r436035990
Fixes#69977
When we parse a chain of method calls like `foo.a().b().c()`, each
`MethodCallExpr` gets assigned a span that starts at the beginning of
the call chain (`foo`). While this is useful for diagnostics, it means
that `Location::caller` will return the same location for every call
in a call chain.
This PR makes us separately record the span of the function name and
arguments for a method call (e.g. `b()` in `foo.a().b().c()`). This
`Span` is passed through HIR lowering and MIR building to
`TerminatorKind::Call`, where it is used in preference to
`Terminator.source_info.span` when determining `Location::caller`.
This new span is also useful for diagnostics where we want to emphasize
a particular method call - for an example, see
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/72389#discussion_r436035990
Don't lose empty `where` clause when pretty-printing
Previously, we would parse `struct Foo where;` and `struct Foo;`
identically, leading to an 'empty' `where` clause being omitted during
pretty printing. This will cause us to lose spans when proc-macros
involved, since we will have a collected `where` token that does not
appear in the pretty-printed item.
We now explicitly track the presence of a `where` token during parsing,
so that we can distinguish between `struct Foo where;` and `struct Foo;`
during pretty-printing
Previously, we would parse `struct Foo where;` and `struct Foo;`
identically, leading to an 'empty' `where` clause being omitted during
pretty printing. This will cause us to lose spans when proc-macros
involved, since we will have a collected `where` token that does not
appear in the pretty-printed item.
We now explicitly track the presence of a `where` token during parsing,
so that we can distinguish between `struct Foo where;` and `struct Foo;`
during pretty-printing
add issue 72373 tests
fmt test
fix suggestion format
Replacement, not insertion of suggested string
implement review changes
refactor to span_suggestion_verbose, improve suggestion message, change id @ pattern space formatting
fmt
fix diagnostics spacing between ident and @
refactor reference
Literal error reporting cleanup
While doing some performance work, I noticed some code duplication in `librustc_parser/lexer/mod.rs`, so I cleaned it up.
This PR is probably best reviewed commit by commit.
I'm not sure what the API stability practices for `librustc_lexer` are. Four public methods in `unescape.rs` can be removed, but two are used by clippy, so I left them in for now.
I could open a PR for Rust-Analyzer when this one lands.
But how do I open a PR for clippy? (Git submodules are frustrating to work with)
Confusing suggestion on incorrect closing `}`
Compiler returns
```
error: unexpected closing delimiter: `}`
--> main.rs:20:1
|
9 | ErrorHandled::Reported => {}
| -- this block is empty, you might have not meant to close it temp
...
20 | }
| ^ unexpected closing delimiter
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Lint must_use on mem::replace
This adds a hint on `mem::replace`, "if you don't need the old value,
you can just assign the new value directly". This is in similar spirit
to the `must_use` on `ManuallyDrop::take`.
Dylan DPC