compiletest: Remove the `-test` suffix from normalize directives
This suffix was an artifact of using the same condition-checking engine as the `ignore-*` and `only-*` directives, but in practice we have only 2 tests that legitimately use a condition, and both of them only care about 32-bit vs 64-bit.
This PR detaches `normalize-*` directives from the condition checker, and replaces it with a much simpler system of four explicit `NormalizeKind` values. It then takes advantage of that simplicity to get rid of the `-test` suffix.
---
Addresses one of the points of #126372.
The new name-checking code is a bit quaint, but I think it's a definite improvement over the status quo.
---
The corresponding dev-guide update is https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/2172.
r? jieyouxu
[macro_metavar_expr_concat] Fix#128346Fix#128346Fix#131393
The syntax is invalid in both issues so I guess that theoretically the compiler should have aborted early.
This PR tries to fix a local problem but let me know if there are better options.
cc `@petrochenkov` if you are interested
Use orphaned error code for the same error it belonged to before.
```
error[E0665]: `#[derive(Default)]` on enum with no `#[default]`
--> $DIR/macros-nonfatal-errors.rs:42:10
|
LL | #[derive(Default)]
| ^^^^^^^
LL | / enum NoDeclaredDefault {
LL | | Foo,
LL | | Bar,
LL | | }
| |_- this enum needs a unit variant marked with `#[default]`
|
= note: this error originates in the derive macro `Default` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
help: make this unit variant default by placing `#[default]` on it
|
LL | #[default] Foo,
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
help: make this unit variant default by placing `#[default]` on it
|
LL | #[default] Bar,
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
```
This is consistent with all other diagnostics I could find containing
features and enables the use of `DiagSymbolList` for generalizing
diagnostics for unstable library features to multiple features.
Much like the previous commit.
I think the removal of "the token" in each message is fine here. There
are many more error messages that mention tokens without saying "the
token" than those that do say it.
By using `token_descr`, as is done for many other errors, we can get
slightly better descriptions in error messages, e.g.
"macro expansion ignores token `let` and any following" becomes
"macro expansion ignores keyword `let` and any tokens following".
This will be more important once invisible delimiters start being
mentioned in error messages -- without this commit, that leads to error
messages such as "error at ``" because invisible delimiters are
pretty printed as an empty string.
Special treatment empty tuple when suggest adding a string literal in format macro.
For example:
```rust
let s = "123";
println!({}, "sss", s);
```
Suggest:
`println!("{:?} {} {}", {}, "sss", s);`
fixes#130170
Implement RFC3695 Allow boolean literals as cfg predicates
This PR implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695: allow boolean literals as cfg predicates, i.e. `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)`.
r? `@nnethercote` *(or anyone with parser knowledge)*
cc `@clubby789`
Fix `break_last_token`.
It currently doesn't handle the three-char tokens `>>=` and `<<=` correctly. These can be broken twice, resulting in three individual tokens. This is a latent bug that currently doesn't cause any problems, but does cause problems for #124141, because that PR increases the usage of lazy token streams.
r? `@petrochenkov`
It currently doesn't handle the three-char tokens `>>=` and `<<=`
correctly. These can be broken twice, resulting in three individual
tokens. This is a latent bug that currently doesn't cause any problems,
but does cause problems for #124141, because that PR increases the usage
of lazy token streams.
In 2021 pat was changed to recognize `|` at the top level, with
pat_param added to retain the old behavior. This means
pat is subject to the same cross-edition behavior as expr will be in
2024.
Co-authored-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
There's a subtle interaction between macros with metavar expressions and the
edition-dependent fragment matching behavior. This test illustrates the current
behavior when using macro-generating-macros across crate boundaries with
different editions.
Co-Authored-By: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Eric Holk <eric@theincredibleholk.org>
This commit does the following.
- Renames `collect_tokens_trailing_token` as `collect_tokens`, because
(a) it's annoying long, and (b) the `_trailing_token` bit is less
accurate now that its types have changed.
- In `collect_tokens`, adds a `Option<CollectPos>` argument and a
`UsePreAttrPos` in the return type of `f`. These are used in
`parse_expr_force_collect` (for vanilla expressions) and in
`parse_stmt_without_recovery` (for two different cases of expression
statements). Together these ensure are enough to fix all the problems
with token collection and assoc expressions. The changes to the
`stringify.rs` test demonstrate some of these.
- Adds a new test. The code in this test was causing an assertion
failure prior to this commit, due to an invalid `NodeRange`.
The extra complexity is annoying, but necessary to fix the existing
problems.
`missing_fragment_specifier` has been a future compatibility warning
since 2017. Uplifting it to an unconditional hard error was attempted in
2020, but eventually reverted due to fallout.
Make it an error only in edition >= 2024, leaving the lint for older
editions. This change will make it easier to support more macro syntax
that relies on usage of `$`.
Fixes <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40107>
Do not use question as label
We don't want to have questions in the diagnostic output. Instead, we use wording that communicates uncertainty, like "might":
```
error[E0432]: unresolved import `spam`
--> $DIR/import-from-missing-star-3.rs:2:9
|
LL | use spam::*;
| ^^^^ you might be missing crate `spam`
|
= help: consider adding `extern crate spam` to use the `spam` crate
```
We don't want to have questions in the diagnostic output. Instead, we use wording that communicates uncertainty, like "might":
```
error[E0432]: unresolved import `spam`
--> $DIR/import-from-missing-star-3.rs:2:9
|
LL | use spam::*;
| ^^^^ you might be missing crate `spam`
|
= help: consider adding `extern crate spam` to use the `spam` crate
```
We are moving toward forbidding `missing_fragment_specifier` either in
edition 2024 or unconditionally. Make a first step toward this by
ensuring crates that rely on the old behavior are reported when used as
dependencies.
Tracking issue: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128143>
When finding item gated behind a `cfg` flag, point at it
Previously we would only mention that the item was gated out, and opportunisitically mention the feature flag name when possible. We now point to the place where the item was gated, which can be behind layers of macro indirection, or in different modules.
```
error[E0433]: failed to resolve: could not find `doesnt_exist` in `inner`
--> $DIR/diagnostics-cross-crate.rs:18:23
|
LL | cfged_out::inner::doesnt_exist::hello();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ could not find `doesnt_exist` in `inner`
|
note: found an item that was configured out
--> $DIR/auxiliary/cfged_out.rs:6:13
|
LL | pub mod doesnt_exist {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^
note: the item is gated here
--> $DIR/auxiliary/cfged_out.rs:5:5
|
LL | #[cfg(FALSE)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
