improve error message when `global_asm!` uses `asm!` options
specifically, what was
error: expected one of `)`, `att_syntax`, or `raw`, found `preserves_flags`
--> $DIR/bad-options.rs:45:25
|
LL | global_asm!("", options(preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected one of `)`, `att_syntax`, or `raw`
is now
error: the `preserves_flags` option cannot be used with `global_asm!`
--> $DIR/bad-options.rs:45:25
|
LL | global_asm!("", options(preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the `preserves_flags` option is not meaningful for global-scoped inline assembly
mirroring the phrasing of the [reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/inline-assembly.html#options).
This is also a bit of a refactor for a future `naked_asm!` macro (for use in `#[naked]` functions). Currently this sort of error can come up when switching from inline to global asm, or when a user just isn't that experienced with assembly. With `naked_asm!` added to the mix hitting this error is more likely.
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126908 (Use Cow<'static, str> for InlineAsmTemplatePiece::String)
- #127999 (Inject arm32 shims into Windows metadata generation)
- #128137 (CStr: derive PartialEq, Eq; add test for Ord)
- #128185 (Fix a span error when parsing a wrong param of function.)
- #128187 (Fix 1.80.0 version in RELEASES.md)
- #128189 (Turn an unreachable code path into an ICE)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
`#[naked]`: use an allowlist for allowed options on `asm!` in naked functions
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
this is mostly just a refactor, but using an allowlist (rather than a denylist) for which asm options are allowed in naked functions is a little safer.
These options are disallowed because naked functions are effectively global asm, but defined using inline asm.
Some parser improvements
I was looking closely at attribute handling in the parser while debugging some issues relating to #124141, and found a few small improvements.
``@spastorino``
This commit does the following.
- Pulls the code out of `AttrTokenStream::to_token_trees` into a new
function `attrs_and_tokens_to_token_trees`.
- Simplifies `TokenStream::from_ast` by calling the new function. This
is nicer than the old way, which created a temporary
`AttrTokenStream` containing a single `AttrsTarget` (which required
some cloning) just to call `to_token_trees` on it. (It is good to
remove this use of `AttrsTarget` which isn't related to `cfg_attr`
expansion.)
The only place it is meaningfully used is in a panic message in
`TokenStream::from_ast`. But `node.span()` doesn't need to be printed
because `node` is also printed and it must contain the span.
Added dots at the sentence ends of rustc AST doc
Just a tiny improvement for the AST documentation by bringing consistency to sentence ends. I intentionally didn't terminate every sentence, there are still some members not having them, but at least there's no mixing style on the type level.
Match ergonomics 2024: Implement TC's match ergonomics proposal
Under gate `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024_structural`. Enabling `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024` at the same time allows the union of what the individual gates allow. `@traviscross`
r? `@Nadrieril`
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123076
`@rustbot` label A-edition-2024 A-patterns
Parenthesize break values containing leading label
The AST pretty printer previously produced invalid syntax in the case of `break` expressions with a value that begins with a loop or block label.
```rust
macro_rules! expr {
($e:expr) => {
$e
};
}
fn main() {
loop {
break expr!('a: loop { break 'a 1; } + 1);
};
}
```
`rustc -Zunpretty=expanded main.rs `:
```console
#![feature(prelude_import)]
#![no_std]
#[prelude_import]
use ::std::prelude::rust_2015::*;
#[macro_use]
extern crate std;
macro_rules! expr { ($e:expr) => { $e }; }
fn main() { loop { break 'a: loop { break 'a 1; } + 1; }; }
```
The expanded code is not valid Rust syntax. Printing invalid syntax is bad because it blocks `cargo expand` from being able to format the output as Rust syntax using rustfmt.
```console
error: parentheses are required around this expression to avoid confusion with a labeled break expression
--> <anon>:9:26
|
9 | fn main() { loop { break 'a: loop { break 'a 1; } + 1; }; }
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: wrap the expression in parentheses
|
9 | fn main() { loop { break ('a: loop { break 'a 1; }) + 1; }; }
| + +
```
This PR updates the AST pretty-printer to insert parentheses around the value of a `break` expression as required to avoid this edge case.
Currently it uses a mixture of functional style (`flat_map`) and
imperative style (`push`), which is a bit hard to read. This commit
converts it to fully imperative, which is more concise and avoids the
need for `smallvec`.
I.e. change the return type from `TokenStream` to `Vec<TokenTree>`.
Most of the callsites require a `TokenStream`, but the recursive call
used to create `target_tokens` requires a `Vec<TokenTree>`. It's easy
to convert a `Vec<TokenTree>` to a `TokenStream` (just call
`TokenStream::new`) but it's harder to convert a `TokenStream` to a
`Vec<TokenTree>` (either iterate/clone/collect, or use `Lrc::into_inner`
if appropriate).
So this commit changes the return value to simplify that `target_tokens`
call site.
ast: Standardize visiting order
Order: ID, attributes, inner nodes in source order if possible, tokens, span.
Also always use exhaustive matching in visiting infra, and visit some discovered missing nodes.
Unlike https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/125741 this shouldn't affect anything serious like `macro_rules` scopes.
Under gate `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024_structural`.
Enabling `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024` at the same time allows the union
of what the individual gates allow.
Id, attributes, inner nodes in source order if possible, tokens, span.
Also always use exhaustive matching in visiting infra, and visit some missing nodes.
Fix a span in `parse_ty_bare_fn`.
It currently goes one token too far.
Example: line 259 of `tests/ui/abi/compatibility.rs`:
```
test_abi_compatible!(fn_fn, fn(), fn(i32) -> i32);
```
This commit changes the span for the second element from `fn(),` to `fn()`, i.e. removes the extraneous comma.
This doesn't affect any tests. I found it while debugging some other code. Not a big deal but an easy fix so I figure it worth doing.
r? ``@spastorino``
It currently goes one token too far.
Example: line 259 of `tests/ui/abi/compatibility.rs`:
```
test_abi_compatible!(fn_fn, fn(), fn(i32) -> i32);
```
This commit changes the span for the second element from `fn(),` to
`fn()`, i.e. removes the extraneous comma.
Eliminate the distinction between PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN precedence level
I have been tangling with precedence as part of porting some pretty-printer improvements from syn back to rustc (related to parenthesization of closures, returns, and breaks by the AST pretty-printer).
As far as I have been able to tell, there is no difference between the 2 different precedence levels that rustc identifies as `PREC_POSTFIX` (field access, square bracket index, question mark, method call) and `PREC_PAREN` (loops, if, paths, literals).
There are a bunch of places that look at either `prec < PREC_POSTFIX` or `prec >= PREC_POSTFIX`. But there is nothing that needs to distinguish PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN from one another.
d49994b060/compiler/rustc_ast/src/util/parser.rs (L236-L237)d49994b060/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs (L2829)d49994b060/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/fn_ctxt/suggestions.rs (L1290)
In the interest of eliminating a distinction without a difference, this PR collapses these 2 levels down to 1.
There is exactly 1 case where an expression with PREC_POSTFIX precedence needs to be parenthesized in a location that an expression with PREC_PAREN would not, and that's when the receiver of ExprKind::MethodCall is ExprKind::Field. `x.f()` means a different thing than `(x.f)()`. But this does not justify having separate precedence levels because this special case in the grammar is not governed by precedence. Field access does not have "lower precedence than" method call syntax — you can tell because if it did, then `x.f[0].f()` wouldn't be able to have its unparenthesized field access in the receiver of a method call. Because this Field/MethodCall special case is not governed by precedence, it already requires special handling and is not affected by eliminating the PREC_POSTFIX precedence level.
d49994b060/compiler/rustc_ast_pretty/src/pprust/state/expr.rs (L217-L221)
