More detail when expecting expression but encountering bad macro argument
On nested macro invocations where the same macro fragment changes fragment type from one to the next, point at the chain of invocations and at the macro fragment definition place, explaining that the change has occurred.
Fix#71039.
```
error: expected expression, found pattern `1 + 1`
--> $DIR/trace_faulty_macros.rs:49:37
|
LL | (let $p:pat = $e:expr) => {test!(($p,$e))};
| ------- -- this is interpreted as expression, but it is expected to be pattern
| |
| this macro fragment matcher is expression
...
LL | (($p:pat, $e:pat)) => {let $p = $e;};
| ------ ^^ expected expression
| |
| this macro fragment matcher is pattern
...
LL | test!(let x = 1+1);
| ------------------
| | |
| | this is expected to be expression
| in this macro invocation
|
= note: when forwarding a matched fragment to another macro-by-example, matchers in the second macro will see an opaque AST of the fragment type, not the underlying tokens
= note: this error originates in the macro `test` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
Most notably, this commit changes the `pub use crate::*;` in that file
to `use crate::*;`. This requires a lot of `use` items in other crates
to be adjusted, because everything defined within `rustc_span::*` was
also available via `rustc_span::source_map::*`, which is bizarre.
The commit also removes `SourceMap::span_to_relative_line_string`, which
is unused.
Implement `gen` blocks in the 2024 edition
Coroutines tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43122
`gen` block tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078
This PR implements `gen` blocks that implement `Iterator`. Most of the logic with `async` blocks is shared, and thus I renamed various types that were referring to `async` specifically.
An example usage of `gen` blocks is
```rust
fn foo() -> impl Iterator<Item = i32> {
gen {
yield 42;
for i in 5..18 {
if i.is_even() { continue }
yield i * 2;
}
}
}
```
The limitations (to be resolved) of the implementation are listed in the tracking issue
When encountering code like `f::<f::<f::<f::<f::<f::<f::<f::<...` with
unmatched closing angle brackets, add a linear check that avoids the
exponential behavior of the parse recovery mechanism.
Fix#117080.
```
error: expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`, found `.`
--> $DIR/missing-fat-arrow.rs:25:14
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b {
| - while parsing this struct
LL | a.value = 1;
| -^ expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`
| |
| while parsing this struct field
|
help: try naming a field
|
LL | a: a.value = 1;
| ++
help: you might have meant to start a match arm after the match guard
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b => {
| ++
```
Fix#78585.
There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second
version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid
uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later
passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid
location, sometimes causing ICEs.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a
valid location.
- Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let
expressions.
It's the same as `Delimiter`, minus the `Invisible` variant. I'm
generally in favour of using types to make impossible states
unrepresentable, but this one feels very low-value, and the conversions
between the two types are annoying and confusing.
Look at the change in `src/tools/rustfmt/src/expr.rs` for an example:
the old code converted from `MacDelimiter` to `Delimiter` and back
again, for no good reason. This suggests the author was confused about
the types.
Similar to the last commit, it's more of a `Parser`-level concern than a
`TokenCursor`-level concern. And the struct size reductions are nice.
After this change, `TokenCursor` is as minimal as possible (two fields
and two methods) which is nice.
It's more of a `Parser`-level concern than a `TokenCursor`-level
concern. Also, `num_bump_calls` is a more accurate name, because it's
incremented in `Parser::bump`.
Move doc comment desugaring out of `TokenCursor`.
It's awkward that `TokenCursor` sometimes desugars doc comments on the fly, but usually doesn't.
r? `@petrochenkov`
`TokenCursor` currently does doc comment desugaring on the fly, if the
`desugar_doc_comment` field is set. This requires also modifying the
token stream on the fly with `replace_prev_and_rewind`.
This commit moves the doc comment desugaring out of `TokenCursor`, by
introducing a new `TokenStream::desugar_doc_comment` method. This
separation of desugaring and iterating makes the code nicer.
It doesn't really matter what the `desugar_doc_comments` argument is
here, because in practice we never look ahead through doc comments.
Changing it to `cursor.desugar_doc_comments` will allow some follow-up
simplifications.
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!
