fix(doctest): detect extern crate items in statement doctests
This partially reverts #91026, because rustdoc needs to detect the extern statements, even when they appear inside implicit `main()`. It does not entirely revert it, so the old bug is still fixed, by duplicating some of the logic from `parse_mod` instead of trying to use it directly.
Fixes#91134
This partially reverts #91026, because rustdoc needs to detect the extern statements,
even when they appear inside implicit `main()`. It does not entirely revert it,
so the old bug is still fixed, by duplicating some of the logic from `parse_mod`
instead of trying to use it directly.
Fixes#91134
TraitKind -> Trait
TyAliasKind -> TyAlias
ImplKind -> Impl
FnKind -> Fn
All `*Kind`s in AST are supposed to be enums.
Tuple structs are converted to braced structs for the types above, and fields are reordered in syntactic order.
Also, mutable AST visitor now correctly visit spans in defaultness, unsafety, impl polarity and constness.
rustc_span: `Ident::invalid` -> `Ident::empty`
The equivalent for `Symbol`s was renamed some time ago (`kw::Invalid` -> `kw::Empty`), and it makes sense to do the same thing for `Ident`s as well.
Nicer error message if the user attempts to do let...else if
Gives a nice "conditional `else if` is not supported for `let...else`" error when encountering a `let...else if` pattern, as suggested in the [let...else tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87335#issuecomment-944846205).
"Fix" an overflow in byte position math
r? `@estebank`
help! I fixed the ICE only to brick the diagnostic.
I mean, it was wrong previously (using an already expanded macro span), but it is really bad now XD
Newcomers may write `{1, 2, 3}` for making arrays, and the current error
message is not informative enough to quickly convince them what is
needed to fix the error.
This PR implements a diagnostic for this case, and its output looks like
this:
```text
error: this code is interpreted as a block expression, not an array
--> src/lib.rs:1:22
|
1 | const FOO: [u8; 3] = {
| ______________________^
2 | | 1, 2, 3
3 | | };
| |_^
|
= note: to define an array, one would use square brackets instead of curly braces
help: try using [] instead of {}
|
1 | const FOO: [u8; 3] = [
2 | 1, 2, 3
3 | ];
|
```
Fix#87672
Recover from `Foo(a: 1, b: 2)`
Detect likely `struct` literal using parentheses as delimiters and emit
targeted suggestion instead of type ascription parse error.
Fix#61326.
Revert anon union parsing
Revert PR #84571 and #85515, which implemented anonymous union parsing in a manner that broke the context-sensitivity for the `union` keyword and thus broke stable Rust code.
Fix#88583.
Accept `m!{ .. }.method()` and `m!{ .. }?` statements.
This PR fixes something that I keep running into when using `quote!{}.into()` in a proc macro to convert the `proc_macro2::TokenStream` to a `proc_macro::TokenStream`:
Before:
```
error: expected expression, found `.`
--> src/lib.rs:6:6
|
4 | quote! {
5 | ...
6 | }.into()
| ^ expected expression
```
After:
```
```
(No output, compiles fine.)
---
Context:
For expressions like `{ 1 }` and `if true { 1 } else { 2 }`, we accept them as full statements without a trailing `;`, which means the following is not accepted:
```rust
{ 1 } - 1 // error
```
since that is parsed as two statements: `{ 1 }` and `-1`. Syntactically correct, but the type of `{ 1 }` should be `()` as there is no `;`.
However, for specifically `.` and `?` after the `}`, we do [continue parsing it as an expression](13db8440bb/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs (L864-L876)):
```rust
{ "abc" }.len(); // ok
```
For braced macro invocations, we do not do this:
```rust
vec![1, 2, 3].len(); // ok
vec!{1, 2, 3}.len(); // error
```
(It parses `vec!{1, 2, 3}` as a full statement, and then complains about `.len()` not being a valid expression.)
This PR changes this to also look for a `.` and `?` after a braced macro invocation. We can be sure the macro is an expression and not a full statement in those cases, since no statement can start with a `.` or `?`.
Use smaller spans for some structured suggestions
Use more accurate suggestion spans for
* argument parse error
* fully qualified path
* missing code block type
* numeric casts
Change more x64 size checks to not apply to x32.
Commit 95e096d6 changed a bunch of size checks already, but more have
been added, so this fixes the new ones the same way: the various size
checks that are conditional on target_arch = "x86_64" were not intended
to apply to x86_64-unknown-linux-gnux32, so add
target_pointer_width = "64" to the conditions.
This commit focuses on emitting clean errors for the following syntax
error:
```
Some(42).map(|a|
dbg!(a);
a
);
```
Previous implementation tried to recover after parsing the closure body
(the `dbg` expression) by replacing the next `;` with a `,`, which made
the next expression belong to the next function argument. As such, the
following errors were emitted (among others):
- the semicolon token was not expected,
- a is not in scope,
- Option::map is supposed to take one argument, not two.
This commit allows us to gracefully handle this situation by adding
giving the parser the ability to remember when it has just parsed a
closure body inside a function call. When this happens, we can treat the
unexpected `;` specifically and try to parse as much statements as
possible in order to eat the whole block. When we can't parse statements
anymore, we generate a clean error indicating that the braces are
missing, and return an ExprKind::Err.
This reverts commit 059b68dd67.
Note that this was manually adjusted to retain some of the refactoring
introduced by commit 059b68dd67, so that it could
likewise retain the correction introduced in commit
5b4bc05fa5
Improve diagnostics for unary plus operators (#88276)
This pull request improves the diagnostics emitted on parsing a unary plus operator. See #88276.
Before:
```
error: expected expression, found `+`
--> src/main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let x = +1;
| ^ expected expression
```
After:
```
error: leading `+` is not supported
--> main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let x = +1;
| ^
| |
| unexpected `+`
| help: try removing the `+`
```
