Remove `token::{Open,Close}Delim`
By replacing them with `{Open,Close}{Param,Brace,Bracket,Invisible}`.
PR #137902 made `ast::TokenKind` more like `lexer::TokenKind` by
replacing the compound `BinOp{,Eq}(BinOpToken)` variants with fieldless
variants `Plus`, `Minus`, `Star`, etc. This commit does a similar thing
with delimiters. It also makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`parser::TokenType`.
This requires a few new methods:
- `TokenKind::is_{,open_,close_}delim()` replace various kinds of
pattern matches.
- `Delimiter::as_{open,close}_token_kind` are used to convert
`Delimiter` values to `TokenKind`.
Despite these additions, it's a net reduction in lines of code. This is
because e.g. `token::OpenParen` is so much shorter than
`token::OpenDelim(Delimiter::Parenthesis)` that many multi-line forms
reduce to single line forms. And many places where the number of lines
doesn't change are still easier to read, just because the names are
shorter, e.g.:
```
- } else if self.token != token::CloseDelim(Delimiter::Brace) {
+ } else if self.token != token::CloseBrace {
```
r? `@petrochenkov`
By replacing them with `{Open,Close}{Param,Brace,Bracket,Invisible}`.
PR #137902 made `ast::TokenKind` more like `lexer::TokenKind` by
replacing the compound `BinOp{,Eq}(BinOpToken)` variants with fieldless
variants `Plus`, `Minus`, `Star`, etc. This commit does a similar thing
with delimiters. It also makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`parser::TokenType`.
This requires a few new methods:
- `TokenKind::is_{,open_,close_}delim()` replace various kinds of
pattern matches.
- `Delimiter::as_{open,close}_token_kind` are used to convert
`Delimiter` values to `TokenKind`.
Despite these additions, it's a net reduction in lines of code. This is
because e.g. `token::OpenParen` is so much shorter than
`token::OpenDelim(Delimiter::Parenthesis)` that many multi-line forms
reduce to single line forms. And many places where the number of lines
doesn't change are still easier to read, just because the names are
shorter, e.g.:
```
- } else if self.token != token::CloseDelim(Delimiter::Brace) {
+ } else if self.token != token::CloseBrace {
```
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #135340 (Add `explicit_extern_abis` Feature and Enforce Explicit ABIs)
- #139440 (rustc_target: RISC-V: feature addition batch 2)
- #139667 (cfi: Remove #[no_sanitize(cfi)] for extern weak functions)
- #139828 (Don't require rigid alias's trait to hold)
- #139854 (Improve parse errors for stray lifetimes in type position)
- #139889 (Clean UI tests 3 of n)
- #139894 (Fix `opt-dist` CLI flag and make it work without LLD)
- #139900 (stepping into impls for normalization is unproductive)
- #139915 (replace some #[rustc_intrinsic] usage with use of the libcore declarations)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
This will allow us to eagerly translate messages on a top-level
diagnostic, such as a `LintDiagnostic`. As a bonus, we can remove the
awkward closure passed into Subdiagnostic and make better use of
`Into`.
Improve parse errors for stray lifetimes in type position
While technically & syntactically speaking lifetimes do begin[^1] types in type contexts (this essentially excludes generic argument lists) and require a following `+` to form a complete type (`'a +` denotes a bare trait object type), the likelihood that a user meant to write a lifetime-prefixed bare trait object type in *modern* editions (Rust ≥2021) when placing a lifetime into a type context is incredibly low (they would need to add at least three tokens to turn it into a *semantically* well-formed TOT: `'a` → `dyn 'a + Trait`).
Therefore let's *lie* in modern editions (just like in PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131239, a precedent if you will) by stating "*expected type, found lifetime*" in such cases which is a lot more a approachable, digestible and friendly compared to "*lifetime in trait object type must be followed by `+`*" (as added in PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/69760).
I've also added recovery for "ampersand-less" reference types (e.g., `'a ()`, `'a mut Ty`) in modern editions because it was trivial to do and I think it's not unlikely to occur in practice.
Fixes#133413.
[^1]: For example, in the context of decl macros, this implies that a lone `'a` always matches syntax fragment `ty` ("even if" there's a later macro matcher expecting syntax fragment `lifetime`). Rephrased, lifetimes (in type contexts) *commit* to the type parser.
Namely, use a more sensical primary span.
Don't pretty-print AST nodes for the diagnostic message. Why:
* It's lossy (e.g., it doesn't replicate trailing `+`s in trait objects.
* It's prone to leak error nodes (printed as `(/*ERROR*/)`) since
the LHS can easily represent recovered code (e.g., `fn(i32?) + T`).
Detect and provide suggestion for `&raw EXPR`
When emitting an error in the parser, and we detect that the previous token was `raw` and we *could* have consumed `const`/`mut`, suggest that this may have been a mistyped raw ref expr. To do this, we add `const`/`mut` to the expected token set when parsing `&raw` as an expression (which does not affect the "good path" of parsing, for the record).
This is kind of a rudimentary error improvement, since it doesn't actually attempt to recover anything, leading to some other knock-on errors b/c we still treat `&raw` as the expression that was parsed... but at least we add the suggestion! I don't think the parser grammar means we can faithfully recover `&raw EXPR` early, i.e. during `parse_expr_borrow`.
Fixes#133231
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #138336 (Improve `-Z crate-attr` diagnostics)
- #139636 (Encode dep node edge count as u32 instead of usize)
- #139666 (cleanup `mir_borrowck`)
- #139695 (compiletest: consistently use `camino::{Utf8Path,Utf8PathBuf}` throughout)
- #139699 (Proactively update coroutine drop shim's phase to account for later passes applied during shim query)
- #139718 (enforce unsafe attributes in pre-2024 editions by default)
- #139722 (Move some things to rustc_type_ir)
- #139760 (UI tests: migrate remaining compile time `error-pattern`s to line annotations when possible)
- #139776 (Switch attrs to `diagnostic::on_unimplemented`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
enforce unsafe attributes in pre-2024 editions by default
New unsafe attributes should emit an error when used without the `unsafe(...)` in all editions.
The `no_mangle`, `link_section` and `export_name` attributes are exceptions, and can still be used without an unsafe in earlier editions. The only attributes for which this change is relevant right now are `#[ffi_const]` and `#[ffi_pure]`.
This change is required for making `#[unsafe(naked)]` sound in pre-2024 editions.
`resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` checks for an empty name. Why is this
necessary? Because `parse_item_impl` can produce an `impl` block with an
empty trait name in some cases. This is pretty gross and very
non-obvious.
This commit avoids the use of the empty trait name. In one case the
trait name is instead pulled from `TyKind::ImplTrait`, which prevents
the output for `tests/ui/impl-trait/extra-impl-in-trait-impl.rs` from
changing. In the other case we just fail the parse and don't try to
recover. I think losing error recovery in this obscure case is worth
the code cleanup.
This change affects `tests/ui/parser/impl-parsing.rs`, which is split in
two, and the obsolete `..` syntax cases are removed (they are tested
elsewhere).
Fixes#139445.
The additional errors aren't great but the first one is still good and
it's the most important, and imperfect errors are better than ICEing.
This can happen when invalid syntax is passed to a declarative macro. We
shouldn't be too strict about the token stream position once the parser
has rejected the invalid syntax.
Fixes#139248.
Implement `super let`
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076
This implements `super let` as proposed in #139080, based on the following two equivalence rules.
1. For all expressions `$expr` in any context, these are equivalent:
- `& $expr`
- `{ super let a = & $expr; a }`
2. And, additionally, these are equivalent in any context when `$expr` is a temporary (aka rvalue):
- `& $expr`
- `{ super let a = $expr; & a }`
So far, this experiment has a few interesting results:
## Interesting result 1
In this snippet:
```rust
super let a = f(&temp());
```
I originally expected temporary `temp()` would be dropped at the end of the statement (`;`), just like in a regular `let`, because `temp()` is not subject to temporary lifetime extension.
However, it turns out that that would break the fundamental equivalence rules.
For example, in
```rust
g(&f(&temp()));
```
the temporary `temp()` will be dropped at the `;`.
The first equivalence rule tells us this must be equivalent:
```rust
g({ super let a = &f(&temp()); a });
```
But that means that `temp()` must live until the last `;` (after `g()`), not just the first `;` (after `f()`).
While this was somewhat surprising to me at first, it does match the exact behavior we need for `pin!()`: The following _should work_. (See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138718)
```rust
g(pin!(f(&mut temp())));
```
Here, `temp()` lives until the end of the statement. This makes sense from the perspective of the user, as no other `;` or `{}` are visible. Whether `pin!()` uses a `{}` block internally or not should be irrelevant.
This means that _nothing_ in a `super let` statement will be dropped at the end of that super let statement. It does not even need its own scope.
This raises questions that are useful for later on:
- Will this make temporaries live _too long_ in cases where `super let` is used not in a hidden block in a macro, but as a visible statement in code like the following?
```rust
let writer = {
super let file = File::create(&format!("/home/{user}/test"));
Writer::new(&file)
};
```
- Is a `let` statement in a block still the right syntax for this? Considering it has _no_ scope of its own, maybe neither a block nor a statement should be involved
This leads me to think that instead of `{ super let $pat = $init; $expr }`, we might want to consider something like `let $pat = $init in $expr` or `$expr where $pat = $init`. Although there are also issues with these, as it isn't obvious anymore if `$init` should be subject to temporary lifetime extension. (Do we want both `let _ = _ in ..` and `super let _ = _ in ..`?)
## Interesting result 2
What about `super let x;` without initializer?
```rust
let a = {
super let x;
x = temp();
&x
};
```
This works fine with the implementation in this PR: `x` is extended to live as long as `a`.
While it matches my expectations, a somewhat interesting thing to realize is that these are _not_ equivalent:
- `super let x = $expr;`
- `super let x; x = $expr;`
In the first case, all temporaries in $expr will live at least as long as (the result of) the surrounding block.
In the second case, temporaries will be dropped at the end of the assignment statement. (Because the assignment statement itself "is not `super`".)
This difference in behavior might be confusing, but it _might_ be useful.
One might want to extend the lifetime of a variable without extending all the temporaries in the initializer expression.
On the other hand, that can also be expressed as:
- `let x = $expr; super let x = x;` (w/o temporary lifetime extension), or
- `super let x = { $expr };` (w/ temporary lifetime extension)
So, this raises these questions:
- Do we want to accept `super let x;` without initializer at all?
- Does it make sense for statements other than let statements to be "super"? An expression statement also drops temporaries at its `;`, so now that we discovered that `super let` basically disables that `;` (see interesting result 1), is there a use to having other statements without their own scope? (I don't think that's ever useful?)
## Interesting result 3
This works now:
```rust
super let Some(x) = a.get(i) else { return };
```
I didn't put in any special cases for `super let else`. This is just the behavior that 'naturally' falls out when implementing `super let` without thinking of the `let else` case.
- Should `super let else` work?
## Interesting result 4
This 'works':
```rust
fn main() {
super let a = 123;
}
```
I didn't put in any special cases for `super let` at function scope. I had expected the code to cause an ICE or other weird failure when used at function body scope, because there's no way to let the variable live as long as the result of the function.
This raises the question:
- Does this mean that this behavior is the natural/expected behavior when `super let` is used at function scope? Or is this just a quirk and should we explicitly disallow `super let` in a function body? (Probably the latter.)
---
The questions above do not need an answer to land this PR. These questions should be considered when redesigning/rfc'ing/stabilizing the feature.
Add new `PatKind::Missing` variants
To avoid some ugly uses of `kw::Empty` when handling "missing" patterns, e.g. in bare fn tys. Helps with #137978. Details in the individual commits.
r? ``@oli-obk``
Add `*_value` methods to proc_macro lib
This is the (re-)implementation of https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/459.
It allows to get the actual value (unescaped) of the different string literals.
It was originally done in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136355 but it broke the artifacts build so we decided to move the crate to crates.io to go around this limitation.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/136652.
Considering this is a copy-paste of the originally approved PR, no need to go through the whole process again. \o/
r? `@Urgau`
Apply `Recovery::Forbidden` when reparsing pasted macro fragments.
Fixes#137874.
The changes to the output of `tests/ui/associated-consts/issue-93835.rs`
partly undo the changes seen when `NtTy` was removed in #133436, which
is good.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
Fixes#137874.
Removes `tests/crashes/137874.rs`; the new test is simpler (defines its
own macro) but tests the same thing.
The changes to the output of `tests/ui/associated-consts/issue-93835.rs`
partly undo the changes seen when `NtTy` was removed in #133436, which
is good.
Experimental feature gate for `super let`
This adds an experimental feature gate, `#![feature(super_let)]`, for the `super let` experiment.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076
Liaison: ``@nikomatsakis``
## Description
There's a rough (inaccurate) description here: https://blog.m-ou.se/super-let/
In short, `super let` allows you to define something that lives long enough to be borrowed by the tail expression of the block. For example:
```rust
let a = {
super let b = temp();
&b
};
```
Here, `b` is extended to live as long as `a`, similar to how in `let a = &temp();`, the temporary will be extended to live as long as `a`.
## Properties
During the temporary lifetimes work we did last year, we explored the properties of "super let" and concluded that the fundamental property should be that these two are always equivalent in any context:
1. `& $expr`
2. `{ super let a = & $expr; a }`
And, additionally, that these are equivalent in any context when `$expr` is a temporary (aka rvalue):
1. `& $expr`
2. `{ super let a = $expr; & a }`
This makes it possible to give a name to a temporary without affecting how temporary lifetimes work, such that a macro can transparently use a block in its expansion, without that having any effect on the outside.
## Implementing pin!() correctly
With `super let`, we can properly implement the `pin!()` macro without hacks: ✨
```rust
pub macro pin($value:expr $(,)?) {
{
super let mut pinned = $value;
unsafe { $crate::pin::Pin::new_unchecked(&mut pinned) }
}
}
```
This is important, as there is currently no way to express it without hacks in Rust 2021 and before (see [hacky definition](2a06022951/library/core/src/pin.rs (L1947))), and no way to express it at all in Rust 2024 (see [issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138718)).
## Fixing format_args!()
This will also allow us to express `format_args!()` in a way where one can assign the result to a variable, fixing a [long standing issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92698):
```rust
let f = format_args!("Hello {name}!"); // error today, but accepted in the future! (after separate FCP)
```
## Experiment
The precise definition of `super let`, what happens for `super let x;` (without initializer), and whether to accept `super let _ = _ else { .. }` are still open questions, to be answered by the experiment.
Furthermore, once we have a more complete understanding of the feature, we might be able to come up with a better syntax. (Which could be just a different keywords, or an entirely different way of naming temporaries that doesn't involve a block and a (super) let statement.)
In the AST, currently we use `BinOpKind` within `ExprKind::AssignOp` and
`AssocOp::AssignOp`, even though this allows some nonsensical
combinations. E.g. there is no `&&=` operator. Likewise for HIR and
THIR.
This commit introduces `AssignOpKind` which only includes the ten
assignable operators, and uses it in `ExprKind::AssignOp` and
`AssocOp::AssignOp`. (And does similar things for `hir::ExprKind` and
`thir::ExprKind`.) This avoids the possibility of nonsensical
combinations, as seen by the removal of the `bug!` case in
`lang_item_for_binop`.
The commit is mostly plumbing, including:
- Adds an `impl From<AssignOpKind> for BinOpKind` (AST) and `impl
From<AssignOp> for BinOp` (MIR/THIR).
- `BinOpCategory` can now be created from both `BinOpKind` and
`AssignOpKind`.
- Replaces the `IsAssign` type with `Op`, which has more information and
a few methods.
- `suggest_swapping_lhs_and_rhs`: moves the condition to the call site,
it's easier that way.
- `check_expr_inner`: had to factor out some code into a separate
method.
I'm on the fence about whether avoiding the nonsensical combinations is
worth the extra code.
Notes about tests:
- tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/feature-gate.rs: some messages are
now duplicated due to repeated parsing.
- tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs: ditto.
- `tests/ui/proc-macro/macro-rules-derive-cfg.rs`: the diff looks large
but the only difference is the insertion of a single
invisible-delimited group around a metavar.
- `tests/ui/attributes/nonterminal-expansion.rs`: a slight span
degradation, somehow related to the recent massive attr parsing
rewrite (#135726). I couldn't work out exactly what is going wrong,
but I don't think it's worth holding things up for a single slightly
suboptimal error message.
remove `feature(inline_const_pat)`
Summarizing https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/144729-t-types/topic/remove.20feature.28inline_const_pat.29.20and.20shared.20borrowck.
With https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/issues/129 we will start to borrowck items together with their typeck parent. This is necessary to correctly support opaque types, blocking the new solver and TAIT/ATPIT stabilization with the old one. This means that we cannot really support `inline_const_pat` as they are implemented right now:
- we want to typeck inline consts together with their parent body to allow inference to flow both ways and to allow the const to refer to local regions of its parent.This means we also need to borrowck the inline const together with its parent as that's necessary to properly support opaque types
- we want the inline const pattern to participate in exhaustiveness checking
- to participate in exhaustiveness checking we need to evaluate it, which requires borrowck, which now relies on borrowck of the typeck root, which ends up checking exhaustiveness again. **This is a query cycle**.
There are 4 possible ways to handle this:
- stop typechecking inline const patterns together with their parent
- causes inline const patterns to be different than inline const exprs
- prevents bidirectional inference, we need to either fail to compile `if let const { 1 } = 1u32` or `if let const { 1u32 } = 1`
- region inference for inline consts will be harder, it feels non-trivial to support inline consts referencing local regions from the parent fn
- inline consts no longer participate in exhaustiveness checking. Treat them like `pat if pat == const { .. }` instead. We then only evaluate them after borrowck
- difference between `const { 1 }` and `const FOO: usize = 1; match x { FOO => () }`. This is confusing
- do they carry their weight if they are now just equivalent to using an if-guard
- delay exhaustiveness checking until after borrowck
- should be possible in theory, but is a quite involved change and may have some unexpected challenges
- remove this feature for now
I believe we should either delay exhaustiveness checking or remove the feature entirely. As moving exhaustiveness checking to after borrow checking is quite complex I think the right course of action is to fully remove the feature for now and to add it again once/if we've got that implementation figured out.
`const { .. }`-expressions remain stable. These seem to have been the main motivation for https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/2920.
r? types
cc `@rust-lang/types` `@rust-lang/lang` #76001
