Make `_` an expression, to discard values in destructuring assignments
This is the third and final step towards implementing destructuring assignment (RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2909, tracking issue: #71126). This PR is the third and final part of #71156, which was split up to allow for easier review.
With this PR, an underscore `_` is parsed as an expression but is allowed *only* on the left-hand side of a destructuring assignment. There it simply discards a value, similarly to the wildcard `_` in patterns. For instance,
```rust
(a, _) = (1, 2)
```
will simply assign 1 to `a` and discard the 2. Note that for consistency,
```
_ = foo
```
is also allowed and equivalent to just `foo`.
Thanks to ````@varkor```` who helped with the implementation, particularly around pre-expansion gating.
r? ````@petrochenkov````
add error_occured field to ConstQualifs,
fix#76064
I wasn't sure what `in_return_place` actually did and not sure why it returns `ConstQualifs` while it's sibling functions return `bool`. So I tried to make as minimal changes to the structure as possible. Please point out whether I have to refactor it or not.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@RalfJung`
Implement destructuring assignment for structs and slices
This is the second step towards implementing destructuring assignment (RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2909, tracking issue: #71126). This PR is the second part of #71156, which was split up to allow for easier review.
Note that the first PR (#78748) is not merged yet, so it is included as the first commit in this one. I thought this would allow the review to start earlier because I have some time this weekend to respond to reviews. If ``@petrochenkov`` prefers to wait until the first PR is merged, I totally understand, of course.
This PR implements destructuring assignment for (tuple) structs and slices. In order to do this, the following *parser change* was necessary: struct expressions are not required to have a base expression, i.e. `Struct { a: 1, .. }` becomes legal (in order to act like a struct pattern).
Unfortunately, this PR slightly regresses the diagnostics implemented in #77283. However, it is only a missing help message in `src/test/ui/issues/issue-77218.rs`. Other instances of this diagnostic are not affected. Since I don't exactly understand how this help message works and how to fix it yet, I was hoping it's OK to regress this temporarily and fix it in a follow-up PR.
Thanks to ``@varkor`` who helped with the implementation, particularly around the struct rest changes.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
Do not collect tokens for doc comments
Doc comment is a single token and AST has all the information to re-create it precisely.
Doc comments are also responsible for majority of calls to `collect_tokens` (with `num_calls == 1` and `num_calls == 0`, cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78736).
(I also moved token collection into `fn parse_attribute` to deduplicate code a bit.)
r? `@Aaron1011`
rustc_ast: Do not panic by default when visiting macro calls
Panicking by default made sense when we didn't have HIR or MIR and everything worked on AST, but now all AST visitors run early and majority of them have to deal with macro calls, often by ignoring them.
The second commit renames `visit_mac` to `visit_mac_call`, the corresponding structures were renamed earlier in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/69589.
Provide diagnostic suggestion in ExprUseVisitor Delegate
The [Delegate trait](981346fc07/compiler/rustc_typeck/src/expr_use_visitor.rs (L28-L38)) currently use `PlaceWithHirId` which is composed of Hir `Place` and the
corresponding expression id.
Even though this is an accurate way of expressing how a Place is used,
it can cause confusion during diagnostics.
Eg:
```
let arr : [String; 5];
let [a, ...] = arr;
^^^ E1 ^^^ = ^^E2^^
```
Here `arr` is moved because of the binding created E1. However, when we
point to E1 in diagnostics with the message `arr` was moved, it can be
confusing. Rather we would like to report E2 to the user.
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/20
r? `@ghost`
The [Delegate
trait](981346fc07/compiler/rustc_typeck/src/expr_use_visitor.rs (L28-L38))
currently use `PlaceWithHirId` which is composed of Hir `Place` and the
corresponding expression id.
Even though this is an accurate way of expressing how a Place is used,
it can cause confusion during diagnostics.
Eg:
```
let arr : [String; 5];
let [a, ...] = arr;
^^^ E1 ^^^ = ^^E2^^
```
Here `arr` is moved because of the binding created E1. However, when we
point to E1 in diagnostics with the message `arr` was moved, it can be
confusing. Rather we would like to report E2 to the user.
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/20
Implement rustc side of report-future-incompat
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71249
This is an alternative to `@pnkfelix's` initial implementation in https://github.com/pnkfelix/rust/commits/prototype-rustc-side-of-report-future-incompat (mainly because I started working before seeing that branch 😄 ).
My approach outputs the entire original `Diagnostic`, in a way that is compatible with incremental compilation. This is not yet integrated with compiletest, but can be used manually by passing `-Z emit-future-incompat-report` to `rustc`.
Several changes are made to support this feature:
* The `librustc_session/lint` module is moved to a new crate `librustc_lint_defs` (name bikesheddable). This allows accessing lint definitions from `librustc_errors`.
* The `Lint` struct is extended with an `Option<FutureBreakage>`. When present, it indicates that we should display a lint in the future-compat report. `FutureBreakage` contains additional information that we may want to display in the report (currently, a `date` field indicating when the crate will stop compiling).
* A new variant `rustc_error::Level::Allow` is added. This is used when constructing a diagnostic for a future-breakage lint that is marked as allowed (via `#[allow]` or `--cap-lints`). This allows us to capture any future-breakage diagnostics in one place, while still discarding them before they are passed to the `Emitter`.
* `DiagnosticId::Lint` is extended with a `has_future_breakage` field, indicating whether or not the `Lint` has future breakage information (and should therefore show up in the report).
* `Session` is given access to the `LintStore` via a new `SessionLintStore` trait (since `librustc_session` cannot directly reference `LintStore` without a cyclic dependency). We use this to turn a string `DiagnosticId::Lint` back into a `Lint`, to retrieve the `FutureBreakage` data.
Currently, `FutureBreakage.date` is always set to `None`. However, this could potentially be interpreted by Cargo in the future.
I've enabled the future-breakage report for the `ARRAY_INTO_ITER` lint, which can be used to test out this PR. The intent is to use the field to allow Cargo to determine the date of future breakage (as described in [RFC 2834](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2834-cargo-report-future-incompat.md)) without needing to parse the diagnostic itself.
cc `@pnkfelix`
Split out statement attributes changes from #78306
This is the same as PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78306, but `unused_doc_comments` is modified to explicitly ignore statement items (which preserves the current behavior).
This shouldn't have any user-visible effects, so it can be landed without lang team discussion.
---------
When the 'early' and 'late' visitors visit an attribute target, they
activate any lint attributes (e.g. `#[allow]`) that apply to it.
This can affect warnings emitted on sibiling attributes. For example,
the following code does not produce an `unused_attributes` for
`#[inline]`, since the sibiling `#[allow(unused_attributes)]` suppressed
the warning.
```rust
trait Foo {
#[allow(unused_attributes)] #[inline] fn first();
#[inline] #[allow(unused_attributes)] fn second();
}
```
However, we do not do this for statements - instead, the lint attributes
only become active when we visit the struct nested inside `StmtKind`
(e.g. `Item`).
Currently, this is difficult to observe due to another issue - the
`HasAttrs` impl for `StmtKind` ignores attributes for `StmtKind::Item`.
As a result, the `unused_doc_comments` lint will never see attributes on
item statements.
This commit makes two interrelated fixes to the handling of inert
(non-proc-macro) attributes on statements:
* The `HasAttr` impl for `StmtKind` now returns attributes for
`StmtKind::Item`, treating it just like every other `StmtKind`
variant. The only place relying on the old behavior was macro
which has been updated to explicitly ignore attributes on item
statements. This allows the `unused_doc_comments` lint to fire for
item statements.
* The `early` and `late` lint visitors now activate lint attributes when
invoking the callback for `Stmt`. This ensures that a lint
attribute (e.g. `#[allow(unused_doc_comments)]`) can be applied to
sibiling attributes on an item statement.
For now, the `unused_doc_comments` lint is explicitly disabled on item
statements, which preserves the current behavior. The exact locatiosn
where this lint should fire are being discussed in PR #78306
When the 'early' and 'late' visitors visit an attribute target, they
activate any lint attributes (e.g. `#[allow]`) that apply to it.
This can affect warnings emitted on sibiling attributes. For example,
the following code does not produce an `unused_attributes` for
`#[inline]`, since the sibiling `#[allow(unused_attributes)]` suppressed
the warning.
```rust
trait Foo {
#[allow(unused_attributes)] #[inline] fn first();
#[inline] #[allow(unused_attributes)] fn second();
}
```
However, we do not do this for statements - instead, the lint attributes
only become active when we visit the struct nested inside `StmtKind`
(e.g. `Item`).
Currently, this is difficult to observe due to another issue - the
`HasAttrs` impl for `StmtKind` ignores attributes for `StmtKind::Item`.
As a result, the `unused_doc_comments` lint will never see attributes on
item statements.
This commit makes two interrelated fixes to the handling of inert
(non-proc-macro) attributes on statements:
* The `HasAttr` impl for `StmtKind` now returns attributes for
`StmtKind::Item`, treating it just like every other `StmtKind`
variant. The only place relying on the old behavior was macro
which has been updated to explicitly ignore attributes on item
statements. This allows the `unused_doc_comments` lint to fire for
item statements.
* The `early` and `late` lint visitors now activate lint attributes when
invoking the callback for `Stmt`. This ensures that a lint
attribute (e.g. `#[allow(unused_doc_comments)]`) can be applied to
sibiling attributes on an item statement.
For now, the `unused_doc_comments` lint is explicitly disabled on item
statements, which preserves the current behavior. The exact locatiosn
where this lint should fire are being discussed in PR #78306
BTreeMap: refactor Entry out of map.rs into its own file
btree/map.rs is approaching the 3000 line mark, splitting out the entry
code buys about 500 lines of headroom.
I've created this PR because the changes I've made in #77438 will push `map.rs` over the 3000 line limit and cause tidy to complain.
I picked `Entry` to factor out because it feels less tightly coupled to the rest of `BTreeMap` than the various iterator implementations.
Related: #60302
The wrapper type led to tons of target.target
across the compiler. Its ptr_width field isn't
required any more, as target_pointer_width
is already present in parsed form.
RunCompiler::new takes non-optional params, and optional
params can be set using set_*field_name* method.
finally `run` will forward all fields to `run_compiler`.
Fix LitKind's byte buffer to use refcounted slice
While working on adding a new lint for clippy (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/6044) for avoiding shared ownership of "mutable buffer" types (such as using `Rc<Vec<T>>` instead of `Rc<[T]>`), I noticed a type exported from rustc_ast and used by clippy gets caught by the lint. This PR fixes the exported type.
This PR includes the actual change to clippy too, but I will open a PR directly against clippy for that part (although it will currently fail to build there).
