Instead of updating global state to mark attributes as used,
we now explicitly emit a warning when an attribute is used in
an unsupported position. As a side effect, we are to emit more
detailed warning messages (instead of just a generic "unused" message).
`Session.check_name` is removed, since its only purpose was to mark
the attribute as used. All of the callers are modified to use
`Attribute.has_name`
Additionally, `AttributeType::AssumedUsed` is removed - an 'assumed
used' attribute is implemented by simply not performing any checks
in `CheckAttrVisitor` for a particular attribute.
We no longer emit unused attribute warnings for the `#[rustc_dummy]`
attribute - it's an internal attribute used for tests, so it doesn't
mark sense to treat it as 'unused'.
With this commit, a large source of global untracked state is removed.
Fixes#87877
This change interacts badly with `noop_flat_map_stmt`,
which synthesizes multiple statements with the same `NodeId`.
I'm working on a better fix that will still allow us to
remove this special case. For now, let's revert the change
to fix the ICE.
This reverts commit a4262cc984, reversing
changes made to 8ee962f88e.
Support negative numbers in Literal::from_str
proc_macro::Literal has allowed negative numbers in a single literal token ever since Rust 1.29, using https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/proc_macro/struct.Literal.html#method.isize_unsuffixed and similar constructors.
```rust
let lit = proc_macro::Literal::isize_unsuffixed(-10);
```
However, the suite of constructors on Literal is not sufficient for all use cases, for example arbitrary precision floats, or custom suffixes in FFI macros.
```rust
let lit = proc_macro::Literal::f64_unsuffixed(0.101001000100001000001000000100000001); // :(
let lit = proc_macro::Literal::i???_suffixed(10ulong); // :(
```
For those, macros construct the literal using from_str instead, which preserves arbitrary precision, custom suffixes, base, and digit grouping.
```rust
let lit = "0.101001000100001000001000000100000001".parse::<Literal>().unwrap();
let lit = "10ulong".parse::<Literal>().unwrap();
let lit = "0b1000_0100_0010_0001".parse::<Literal>().unwrap();
```
However, until this PR it was not possible to construct a literal token that is **both** negative **and** preserving of arbitrary precision etc.
This PR fixes `Literal::from_str` to recognize negative integer and float literals.
rfc3052 followup: Remove authors field from Cargo manifests
Since RFC 3052 soft deprecated the authors field, hiding it from
crates.io, docs.rs, and making Cargo not add it by default, and it is
not generally up to date/useful information for contributors, we may as well
remove it from crates in this repo.
Since RFC 3052 soft deprecated the authors field anyway, hiding it from
crates.io, docs.rs, and making Cargo not add it by default, and it is
not generally up to date/useful information, we should remove it from
crates in this repo.
Display an extra note for trailing semicolon lint with trailing macro
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).
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).
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.
When we need to emit a lint at a macro invocation, we currently use the
`NodeId` of its parent definition (e.g. the enclosing function). This
means that any `#[allow]` / `#[deny]` attributes placed 'closer' to the
macro (e.g. on an enclosing block or statement) will have no effect.
This commit computes a better `lint_node_id` in `InvocationCollector`.
When we visit/flat_map an AST node, we assign it a `NodeId` (earlier
than we normally would), and store than `NodeId` in current
`ExpansionData`. When we collect a macro invocation, the current
`lint_node_id` gets cloned along with our `ExpansionData`, allowing it
to be used if we need to emit a lint later on.
This improves the handling of `#[allow]` / `#[deny]` for
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` and some `asm!`-related lints.
The 'legacy derive helpers' lint retains its current behavior
(I've inlined the now-removed `lint_node_id` function), since
there isn't an `ExpansionData` readily available.
expand: Support helper attributes for built-in derive macros
This is needed for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/86735 (derive macro `Default` should have a helper attribute `default`).
With this PR we can specify helper attributes for built-in derives using syntax `#[rustc_builtin_macro(MacroName, attributes(attr1, attr2, ...))]` which mirrors equivalent syntax for proc macros `#[proc_macro_derive(MacroName, attributes(attr1, attr2, ...))]`.
Otherwise expansion infra was already ready for this.
The attribute parsing code is shared between proc macro derives and built-in macros (`fn parse_macro_name_and_helper_attrs`).
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #87085 (Search result colors)
- #87090 (Make BTreeSet::split_off name elements like other set methods do)
- #87098 (Unignore some pretty printing tests)
- #87099 (Upgrade `cc` crate to 1.0.69)
- #87101 (Suggest a path separator if a stray colon is found in a match arm)
- #87102 (Add GUI test for "go to first" feature)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
- The `Rustc::expn_id` field kept redundant information
- `SyntaxContext` is no longer thrown away before `save_proc_macro_span` because it's thrown away during metadata encoding anyway
Currently, we only point at the span of the macro argument. When the
macro call is itself generated by another macro, this can make it
difficult or impossible to determine which macro is responsible for
producing the error.
Remove unused feature gates
The first commit removes a usage of a feature gate, but I don't expect it to be controversial as the feature gate was only used to workaround a limitation of rust in the past. (closures never being `Clone`)
The second commit uses `#[allow_internal_unstable]` to avoid leaking the `trusted_step` feature gate usage from inside the index newtype macro. It didn't work for the `min_specialization` feature gate though.
The third commit removes (almost) all feature gates from the compiler that weren't used anyway.
