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
`ast::Item` has an `ident` field.
- It's always non-empty for these item kinds: `ExternCrate`, `Static`,
`Const`, `Fn`, `Mod`, `TyAlias`, `Enum`, `Struct`, `Union`,
`Trait`, `TraitAlias`, `MacroDef`, `Delegation`.
- It's always empty for these item kinds: `Use`, `ForeignMod`,
`GlobalAsm`, `Impl`, `MacCall`, `DelegationMac`.
There is a similar story for `AssocItemKind` and `ForeignItemKind`.
Some sites that handle items check for an empty ident, some don't. This
is a very C-like way of doing things, but this is Rust, we have sum
types, we can do this properly and never forget to check for the
exceptional case and never YOLO possibly empty identifiers (or possibly
dummy spans) around and hope that things will work out.
The commit is large but it's mostly obvious plumbing work. Some notable
things.
- `ast::Item` got 8 bytes bigger. This could be avoided by boxing the
fields within some of the `ast::ItemKind` variants (specifically:
`Struct`, `Union`, `Enum`). I might do that in a follow-up; this
commit is big enough already.
- For the visitors: `FnKind` no longer needs an `ident` field because
the `Fn` within how has one.
- In the parser, the `ItemInfo` typedef is no longer needed. It was used
in various places to return an `Ident` alongside an `ItemKind`, but
now the `Ident` (if present) is within the `ItemKind`.
- In a few places I renamed identifier variables called `name` (or
`foo_name`) as `ident` (or `foo_ident`), to better match the type, and
because `name` is normally used for `Symbol`s. It's confusing to see
something like `foo_name.name`.
Fix closure recovery for missing block when return type is specified
Firstly, fix the `is_array_like_block` condition to make sure we're actually recovering a mistyped *block* rather than some other delimited expression. This fixes#138748.
Secondly, split out the recovery of missing braces on a closure body into a separate recovery. Right now, the suggestion `"you might have meant to write this as part of a block"` originates from `suggest_fixes_misparsed_for_loop_head`, which feels kinda brittle and coincidental since AFAICT that recovery wasn't ever really intended to fix this.
We also can make this `MachineApplicable` in this case.
Fixes#138748
r? `@fmease` or reassign if you're busy/don't wanna review this
"Missing" patterns are possible in bare fn types (`fn f(u32)`) and
similar places. Currently these are represented in the AST with
`ast::PatKind::Ident` with no `by_ref`, no `mut`, an empty ident, and no
sub-pattern. This flows through to `{hir,thir}::PatKind::Binding` for
HIR and THIR.
This is a bit nasty. It's very non-obvious, and easy to forget to check
for the exceptional empty identifier case.
This commit adds a new variant, `PatKind::Missing`, to do it properly.
The process I followed:
- Add a `Missing` variant to `{ast,hir,thir}::PatKind`.
- Chang `parse_param_general` to produce `ast::PatKind::Missing`
instead of `ast::PatKind::Missing`.
- Look through `kw::Empty` occurrences to find functions where an
existing empty ident check needs replacing with a `PatKind::Missing`
check: `print_param`, `check_trait_item`, `is_named_param`.
- Add a `PatKind::Missing => unreachable!(),` arm to every exhaustive
match identified by the compiler.
- Find which arms are actually reachable by running the test suite,
changing them to something appropriate, usually by looking at what
would happen to a `PatKind::Ident`/`PatKind::Binding` with no ref, no
`mut`, an empty ident, and no subpattern.
Quite a few of the `unreachable!()` arms were never reached. This makes
sense because `PatKind::Missing` can't happen in every pattern, only
in places like bare fn tys and trait fn decls.
I also tried an alternative approach: modifying `ast::Param::pat` to
hold an `Option<P<Pat>>` instead of a `P<Pat>`, but that quickly turned
into a very large and painful change. Adding `PatKind::Missing` is much
easier.
expand: Leave traces when expanding `cfg` attributes
This is the same as https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138515, but for `cfg(true)` instead of `cfg_attr`.
The difference is that `cfg(true)`s already left "traces" after themselves - the `cfg` attributes themselves, with `expanded_inert_attrs` set to true, with full tokens, available to proc macros.
This is not a reasonably expected behavior, but it could not be removed without a replacement, because a [major rustdoc feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3631) and a number of clippy lints rely on it. This PR implements a replacement.
This needs a crater run, because it changes observable behavior (in an intended way) - proc macros can no longer see expanded `cfg(true)` attributes.
(Some minor unnecessary special casing for `sym::cfg_attr` is also removed in this PR.)
r? `@nnethercote`
Mostly parser: Eliminate code that's been dead / semi-dead since the removal of type ascription syntax
**Disclaimer**: This PR is intended to mostly clean up code as opposed to bringing about behavioral changes. Therefore it doesn't aim to address any of the 'FIXME: remove after a month [dated: 2023-05-02]: "type ascription syntax has been removed, see issue [#]101728"'.
---
By commit:
1. Removes truly dead code:
* Since 1.71 (#109128) `let _ = { f: x };` is a syntax error as opposed to a semantic error which allows the parse-time diagnostic (suggestion) "*struct literal body without path // you might have forgotten […]*" to kick in.
* The analysis-time diagnostic (suggestion) from <=1.70 "*cannot find value \`f\` in this scope // you might have forgotten […]*" is therefore no longer reachable.
2. Updates `is_certainly_not_a_block` to be in line with the current grammar:
* The seq. `{ ident:` is definitely not the start of a block. Before the removal of ty ascr, `{ ident: ty_start` would begin a block expr.
* This shouldn't make more code compile IINM, it should *ultimately* only affect diagnostics.
* For example, `if T { f: () } {}` will now be interpreted as an `if` with struct lit `T { f: () }` as its *condition* (which is banned in the parser anyway) as opposed to just `T` (with the *consequent* being `f : ()` which is also invalid (since 1.71)). The diagnostics are almost the same because we have two separate parse recovery procedures + diagnostics: `StructLiteralNeedingParens` (*invalid struct lit*) before and `StructLiteralNotAllowedHere` (*struct lits aren't allowed here*) now, as you can see from the diff.
* (As an aside, even before this PR, fn `maybe_suggest_struct_literal` should've just used the much older & clearer `StructLiteralNotAllowedHere`)
* NB: This does sadly regress the compiler output for `tests/ui/parser/type-ascription-in-pattern.rs` but that can be fixed in follow-up PRs. It's not super important IMO and a natural consequence.
3. Removes code that's become dead due to the prior commit.
* Basically reverts #106620 + #112475 (without regressing rustc's output!).
* Now the older & more robust parse recovery procedure (cc `StructLiteralNotAllowedHere`) takes care of the cases the removed code used to handle.
* This automatically fixes the suggestions for \[[playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2024&gist=7e2030163b11ee96d17adc3325b01780)\]:
* `if Ty::<i32> { f: K }.m() {}`: `if Ty::<i32> { SomeStruct { f: K } }.m() {}` (broken) → ` if (Ty::<i32> { f: K }).m() {}`
* `if <T as Trait>::Out { f: K::<> }.m() {}`: `if <T as Trait>(::Out { f: K::<> }).m() {}` (broken) → `if (<T as Trait>::Out { f: K::<> }).m() {}`
4. Merge and simplify UI tests pertaining to this issue, so it's easier to add more regression tests like for the two cases mentioned above.
5. Merge UI tests and add the two regression tests.
Best reviewed commit by commit (on request I'll partially squash after approval).
StructLiteralNeedingParens is no longer reachable always giving
precedence to StructLiteralNotAllowedHere.
As an aside: The former error struct shouldn't've existed in the
first place. We should've just used the latter in this branch.
Rollup of 8 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #138435 (Add support for postfix yield expressions)
- #138685 (Use `Option<Ident>` for lowered param names.)
- #138700 (Suggest `-Whelp` when pass `--print lints` to rustc)
- #138727 (Do not rely on `type_var_origin` in `OrphanCheckErr::NonLocalInputType`)
- #138729 (Clean up `FnCtxt::resolve_coroutine_interiors`)
- #138731 (coverage: Add LLVM plumbing for expansion regions)
- #138732 (Use `def_path_str` for def id arg in `UnsupportedOpInfo`)
- #138735 (Remove `llvm` and `llvms` triagebot ping aliases for `icebreakers-llvm` ping group)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
expand: Leave traces when expanding `cfg_attr` attributes
Currently `cfg_trace` just disappears during expansion, but after this PR `#[cfg_attr(some tokens)]` will leave a `#[cfg_attr_trace(some tokens)]` attribute instead of itself in AST after expansion (the new attribute is built-in and inert, its inner tokens are the same as in the original attribute).
This trace attribute can then be used by lints or other diagnostics, #133823 has some examples.
Tokens in these trace attributes are set to an empty token stream, so the traces are non-existent for proc macros and cannot affect any user-observable behavior.
This is also a weakness, because if a proc macro processes some code with the trace attributes, they will be lost, so the traces are best effort rather than precise.
The next step is to do the same thing with `cfg` attributes (`#[cfg(TRUE)]` currently remains in both AST and tokens after expanding, it should be replaced with a trace instead).
The idea belongs to `@estebank.`
Add support for postfix yield expressions
We've been having a discussion about whether we want postfix yield, or want to stick with prefix yield, or have both. I figured it's easy enough to support both for now and let us play around with them while the feature is still experimental.
This PR treats `yield x` and `x.yield` as semantically equivalent. There was a suggestion to make `yield x` have a `()` type (so it only works in coroutines with `Resume = ()`. I think that'd be worth trying, either in a later PR, or before this one merges, depending on people's opinions.
#43122
Make `Parser::parse_expr_cond` public
This allows usage in rustfmt and rustfmt forks.
I'm using this for custom macro formatting, see 30c83df9e1/src/parse/macros/html.rs (L57)
It would be great if this could be upstreamed so I don't need to rely on a fork.
We had a discussion[1] today about whether postfix yield would make sense.
It's easy enough to support both in the parser, so we might as well have
both and see how people use it while the feature is experimental.
[1]: 505231568
Add `#[define_opaques]` attribute and require it for all type-alias-impl-trait sites that register a hidden type
Instead of relying on the signature of items to decide whether they are constraining an opaque type, the opaque types that the item constrains must be explicitly listed.
A previous version of this PR used an actual attribute, but had to keep the resolved `DefId`s in a side table.
Now we just lower to fields in the AST that have no surface syntax, instead a builtin attribute macro fills in those fields where applicable.
Note that for convenience referencing opaque types in associated types from associated methods on the same impl will not require an attribute. If that causes problems `#[defines()]` can be used to overwrite the default of searching for opaques in the signature.
One wart of this design is that closures and static items do not have generics. So since I stored the opaques in the generics of functions, consts and methods, I would need to add a custom field to closures and statics to track this information. During a T-types discussion we decided to just not do this for now.
fixes#131298
