They are also removed from the prelude as per the decision in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87228.
stdarch and compiler-builtins are updated to work with the new, stable
asm! and global_asm! macros.
Currently, we parse macros at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }`) as expressions, rather than
statements. This means that a macro invoked in this position
cannot expand to items or semicolon-terminated expressions.
In the future, we might want to start parsing these kinds of macros
as statements. This would make expansion more 'token-based'
(i.e. macro expansion behaves (almost) as if you just textually
replaced the macro invocation with its output). However,
this is a breaking change (see PR #78991), so it will require
further discussion.
Since the current behavior will not be changing any time soon,
we need to address the interaction with the
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` lint. Since we are parsing
the result of macro expansion as an expression, we will emit a lint
if there's a trailing semicolon in the macro output. However, this
results in a somewhat confusing message for users, since it visually
looks like there should be no problem with having a semicolon
at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }` => `fn foo() { produced_expr; }`)
To help reduce confusion, this commit adds a note explaining
that the macro is being interpreted as an expression. Additionally,
we suggest adding a semicolon after the macro *invocation* - this
will cause us to parse the macro call as a statement. We do *not*
use a structured suggestion for this, since the user may actually
want to remove the semicolon from the macro definition (allowing
the block to evaluate to the expression produced by the macro).
Warn on inert attributes used on bang macro invocation
These attributes are currently discarded.
This may change in the future (see #63221), but for now,
placing inert attributes on a macro invocation does nothing,
so we should warn users about it.
Technically, it's possible for there to be attribute macro
on the same macro invocation (or at a higher scope), which
inspects the inert attribute. For example:
```rust
#[look_for_inline_attr]
#[inline]
my_macro!()
#[look_for_nested_inline]
mod foo { #[inline] my_macro!() }
```
However, this would be a very strange thing to do.
Anyone running into this can manually suppress the warning.
These attributes are currently discarded.
This may change in the future (see #63221), but for now,
placing inert attributes on a macro invocation does nothing,
so we should warn users about it.
Technically, it's possible for there to be attribute macro
on the same macro invocation (or at a higher scope), which
inspects the inert attribute. For example:
```rust
#[look_for_inline_attr]
#[inline]
my_macro!()
#[look_for_nested_inline]
mod foo { #[inline] my_macro!() }
```
However, this would be a very strange thing to do.
Anyone running into this can manually suppress the warning.
Support lint tool names in rustc command line options
When rustc is running without a lint tool such as clippy enabled, options for lints such as `clippy::foo` are meant to be ignored. This was already working for those specified by attrs, such as `#![allow(clippy::foo)]`, but this did not work for command line arguments like `-A clippy::foo`. This PR fixes that issue.
Note that we discovered this issue while discussing https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/5034.
Fixes#86628.
This change merges `check_lint_and_tool_name` into `check_lint_name` in
order to avoid having two very similar functions.
Also adds the `.stderr` file back for the test case, since apparently
it is still needed.
Only include lint in future_incompatible lint group if not an edition lint
A follow up to #86330 - this only includes lints annotated with `FutureIncompatibleInfo` in the `future_incompatibile` lint group if the future compatibility is not tied to an edition.
We probably want to rename `FutureIncompatibleInfo` to something else since this type is now used to indicate future breakages of all kinds (even those that happen in editions). I'd prefer to do that in a separate PR though.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Support for force-warns
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85512.
This PR adds a new command line option `force-warns` which will force the provided lints to warn even if they are allowed by some other mechanism such as `#![allow(warnings)]`.
Some remaining issues:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85512 mentions that `force-warns` should also be capable of taking lint groups instead of individual lints. This is not implemented.
* If a lint has a higher warning level than `warn`, this will cause that lint to warn instead. We probably want to allow the lint to error if it is set to a higher lint and is not allowed somewhere else.
* One test is currently ignored because it's not working - when a deny-by-default lint is allowed, it does not currently warn under `force-warns`. I'm not sure why, but I wanted to get this in before the weekend.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Found with https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer.
Dubious changes:
- Is anyone else using rustc_apfloat? I feel weird completely deleting
x87 support.
- Maybe some of the dead code in rustc_data_structures, in case someone
wants to use it in the future?
- Don't change rustc_serialize
I plan to scrap most of the json module in the near future (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/418) and fixing the
tests needed more work than I expected.
TODO: check if any of the comments on the deleted code should be kept.
Allow registering tool lints with `register_tool`
Previously, there was no way to add a custom tool prefix, even if the tool
itself had registered a lint:
```rust
#![feature(register_tool)]
#![register_tool(xyz)]
#![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
```
```
$ rustc unknown-lint.rs --crate-type lib
error[E0710]: an unknown tool name found in scoped lint: `xyz::my_lint`
--> unknown-lint.rs:3:9
|
3 | #![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
| ^^^
```
This allows opting-in to lints from other tools using `register_tool`.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66079#issuecomment-788589193, ``@chorman0773``
r? ``@petrochenkov``
Previously, there was no way to add a custom tool prefix, even if the tool
itself had registered a lint:
```
#![feature(register_tool)]
#![register_tool(xyz)]
#![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
```
```
$ rustc unknown-lint.rs --crate-type lib
error[E0710]: an unknown tool name found in scoped lint: `xyz::my_lint`
--> unknown-lint.rs:3:9
|
3 | #![warn(xyz::my_lint)]
| ^^^
```
This allows opting-in to lints from other tools using `register_tool`.
Right now, rustdoc users have an unpleasant situation: they can either
use the new tool lint names (`rustdoc::non_autolinks`) or they can use
the old names (`non_autolinks`). If they use the tool lints, they get a
hard error on stable compilers, because rustc rejects all tool names it
doesn't recognize. If they use the old name, they get a warning to
rename the lint to the new name. The only way to compile without
warnings is to add `#[allow(renamed_removed_lints)]`, which defeats the
whole point of the change: we *want* people to switch to the new name.
To avoid people silencing the lint and never migrating to the tool lint,
this avoids warning about the old name, while still allowing you to use
the new name. Once the new `rustdoc` tool name makes it to the stable
channel, we can change these lints to warn again.
This adds the new lint functions `register_alias` and `register_ignored`
- I didn't see an existing way to do this.
