`IntoDiagnostic` defaults to `ErrorGuaranteed`, because errors are the
most common diagnostic level. It makes sense to do likewise for the
closely-related (and much more widely used) `DiagnosticBuilder` type,
letting us write `DiagnosticBuilder<'a, ErrorGuaranteed>` as just
`DiagnosticBuilder<'a>`. This cuts over 200 lines of code due to many
multi-line things becoming single line things.
Add support for `for await` loops
This adds support for `for await` loops. This includes parsing, desugaring in AST->HIR lowering, and adding some support functions to the library.
Given a loop like:
```rust
for await i in iter {
...
}
```
this is desugared to something like:
```rust
let mut iter = iter.into_async_iter();
while let Some(i) = loop {
match core::pin::Pin::new(&mut iter).poll_next(cx) {
Poll::Ready(i) => break i,
Poll::Pending => yield,
}
} {
...
}
```
This PR also adds a basic `IntoAsyncIterator` trait. This is partly for symmetry with the way `Iterator` and `IntoIterator` work. The other reason is that for async iterators it's helpful to have a place apart from the data structure being iterated over to store state. `IntoAsyncIterator` gives us a good place to do this.
I've gated this feature behind `async_for_loop` and opened #118898 as the feature tracking issue.
r? `@compiler-errors`
This commit replaces this pattern:
```
err.into_diagnostic(dcx)
```
with this pattern:
```
dcx.create_err(err)
```
in a lot of places.
It's a little shorter, makes the error level explicit, avoids some
`IntoDiagnostic` imports, and is a necessary prerequisite for the next
commit which will add a `level` arg to `into_diagnostic`.
This requires adding `track_caller` on `create_err` to avoid mucking up
the output of `tests/ui/track-diagnostics/track4.rs`. It probably should
have been there already.
Actually parse async gen blocks correctly
1. I got the control flow in `parse_expr_bottom` messed up, and obviously forgot a test for `async gen`, so we weren't actually ever parsing it correctly.
2. I forgot to gate the span for `async gen {}`, so even if we did parse it, we wouldn't have correctly denied it in `cfg(FALSE)`.
r? eholk
This is an extension of the previous commit. It means the output of
something like this:
```
stringify!(let a: Vec<u32> = vec![];)
```
goes from this:
```
let a: Vec<u32> = vec![] ;
```
With this PR, it now produces this string:
```
let a: Vec<u32> = vec![];
```
Introduce support for `async gen` blocks
I'm delighted to demonstrate that `async gen` block are not very difficult to support. They're simply coroutines that yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and return `()`.
**This PR is WIP and in draft mode for now** -- I'm mostly putting it up to show folks that it's possible. This PR needs a lang-team experiment associated with it or possible an RFC, since I don't think it falls under the jurisdiction of the `gen` RFC that was recently authored by oli (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3513, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078).
### Technical note on the pre-generator-transform yield type:
The reason that the underlying coroutines yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and not `Poll<T>` (which would make more sense, IMO, for the pre-transformed coroutine), is because the `TransformVisitor` that is used to turn coroutines into built-in state machine functions would have to destructure and reconstruct the latter into the former, which requires at least inserting a new basic block (for a `switchInt` terminator, to match on the `Poll` discriminant).
This does mean that the desugaring (at the `rustc_ast_lowering` level) of `async gen` blocks is a bit more involved. However, since we already need to intercept both `.await` and `yield` operators, I don't consider it much of a technical burden.
r? `@ghost`
never_patterns: Parse match arms with no body
Never patterns are meant to signal unreachable cases, and thus don't take bodies:
```rust
let ptr: *const Option<!> = ...;
match *ptr {
None => { foo(); }
Some(!),
}
```
This PR makes rustc accept the above, and enforces that an arm has a body xor is a never pattern. This affects parsing of match arms even with the feature off, so this is delicate. (Plus this is my first non-trivial change to the parser).
~~The last commit is optional; it introduces a bit of churn to allow the new suggestions to be machine-applicable. There may be a better solution? I'm not sure.~~ EDIT: I removed that commit
r? `@compiler-errors`
When encountering a bare assignment in a let-chain, suggest turning the
assignment into a `let` expression or an equality check.
```
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/bad-if-let-suggestion.rs:5:8
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i = 2 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
help: you might have meant to continue the let-chain
|
LL | if let x = 1 && let i = 2 {}
| +++
help: you might have meant to compare for equality
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i == 2 {}
| +
```
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.
Format all the let-chains in compiler crates
Since rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 has landed, soon we will have support for formatting let-chains (as soon as rustfmt syncs and beta gets bumped).
This PR applies the changes [from master rustfmt to rust-lang/rust eagerly](374997516), so that the next beta bump does not have to deal with a 200+ file diff and can remain concerned with other things like `cfg(bootstrap)` -- #113637 was a pain to land, for example, because of let-else.
I will also add this commit to the ignore list after it has landed.
The commands that were run -- I'm not great at bash-foo, but this applies rustfmt to every compiler crate, and then reverts the two crates that should probably be formatted out-of-tree.
```
~/rustfmt $ ls -1d ~/rust/compiler/* | xargs -I@ cargo run --bin rustfmt -- `@/src/lib.rs` --config-path ~/rust --edition=2021 # format all of the compiler crates
~/rust $ git checkout HEAD -- compiler/rustc_codegen_{gcc,cranelift} # revert changes to cg-gcc and cg-clif
```
cc `@rust-lang/rustfmt`
r? `@WaffleLapkin` or `@Nilstrieb` who said they may be able to review this purely mechanical PR :>
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` and `@petrochenkov,` who had some thoughts on the order of operations with big formatting changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95262#issue-1178993801. I think the situation has changed since then, given that let-chains support exists on master rustfmt now, and I'm fairly confident that this formatting PR should land even if *bootstrap* rustfmt doesn't yet format let-chains in order to lessen the burden of the next beta bump.
Detect ruby-style closure in parser
When parsing a closure without a body that is surrounded by a block, suggest moving the opening brace after the closure head.
Fix#116608.
```
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.
- Add doc comment to new type
- Restore "only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions" note
- Rename variant with clearer name
Previously some invalid let expressions would result in both a feature
error and a parsing error. Avoid this and ensure that we only emit the
parsing error when this happens.
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.
