Go over all structured parser suggestions and make them verbose style.
When suggesting to add or remove delimiters, turn them into multiple suggestion parts.
The new condition is equivalent in practice, but it's much more obvious
that it would result in an empty range, because the condition lines up
with the contents of the iterator.
There's a comment saying we don't do it for performance reasons, but it
doesn't actually affect performance.
The commit also tweaks the control flow, to make clearer that two code
paths are mutually exclusive.
Currently the second element is a `Vec<(FlatToken, Spacing)>`. But the
vector always has zero or one elements, and the `FlatToken` is always
`FlatToken::AttrTarget` (which contains an `AttributesData`), and the
spacing is always `Alone`. So we can simplify it to
`Option<AttributesData>`.
An assertion in `to_attr_token_stream` can can also be removed, because
`new_tokens.len()` was always 0 or 1, which means than `range.len()`
is always greater than or equal to it, because `range.is_empty()` is
always false (as per the earlier assertion).
And update the comment. Clearly the return type of this function was
changed at some point in the past, but its name and comment weren't
updated to match.
The number of source code bytes can't exceed a `u32`'s range, so a token
position also can't. This reduces the size of `Parser` and
`LazyAttrTokenStreamImpl` by eight bytes each.
Move binder and polarity parsing into `parse_generic_ty_bound`
Let's pull out the parts of #127054 which just:
1. Make the parsing code less confusing
2. Fix `?use<>` (to correctly be denied)
3. Improve `T: for<'a> 'a` diagnostics
This should have no user-facing effects on stable parsing.
r? fmease
It currently goes one token too far.
Example: line 259 of `tests/ui/abi/compatibility.rs`:
```
test_abi_compatible!(fn_fn, fn(), fn(i32) -> i32);
```
This commit changes the span for the second element from `fn(),` to
`fn()`, i.e. removes the extraneous comma.
coverage: Overhaul validation of the `#[coverage(..)]` attribute
This PR makes sweeping changes to how the (currently-unstable) coverage attribute is validated:
- Multiple coverage attributes on the same item/expression are now treated as an error.
- The attribute must always be `#[coverage(off)]` or `#[coverage(on)]`, and the error messages for this are more consistent.
- A trailing comma is still allowed after off/on, since that's part of the normal attribute syntax.
- Some places that silently ignored a coverage attribute now produce an error instead.
- These cases were all clearly bugs.
- Some places that ignored a coverage attribute (with a warning) now produce an error instead.
- These were originally added as lints, but I don't think it makes much sense to knowingly allow new attributes to be used in meaningless places.
- Some of these errors might soon disappear, if it's easy to extend recursive coverage attributes to things like modules and impl blocks.
---
One of the goals of this PR is to lay a more solid foundation for making the coverage attribute recursive, so that it applies to all nested functions/closures instead of just the one it is directly attached to.
Fixes#126658.
This PR incorporates #126659, which adds more tests for validation of the coverage attribute.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
Special case when a code line only has multiline span starts
Minimize multline span overlap when there are multiple of them starting on the same line:
```
3 | X0 Y0 Z0
| _____^ - -
| | _______| |
| || _________|
4 | ||| X1 Y1 Z1
5 | ||| X2 Y2 Z2
| |||____^__-__- `Z` label
| ||_____|__|
| |______| `Y` is a good letter too
| `X` is a good letter
```
Add hard error and migration lint for unsafe attrs
More implementation work for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123757
This adds the migration lint for unsafe attributes, as well as making it a hard error in Rust 2024.
Merge `PatParam`/`PatWithOr`, and `Expr`/`Expr2021`, for a few reasons.
- It's conceptually nice, because the two pattern kinds and the two
expression kinds are very similar.
- With expressions in particular, there are several places where both
expression kinds get the same treatment.
- It removes one unreachable match arm.
- Most importantly, for #124141 I will need to introduce a new type
`MetaVarKind` that is very similar to `NonterminalKind`, but records a
couple of extra fields for expression metavars. It's nicer to have a
single `MetaVarKind::Expr` expression variant to hold those extra
fields instead of duplicating them across two variants
`MetaVarKind::{Expr,Expr2021}`. And then it makes sense for patterns
to be treated the same way, and for `NonterminalKind` to also be
treated the same way.
I also clarified the comments, because I have long found them a little
hard to understand.
