Recover from `Foo(a: 1, b: 2)`
Detect likely `struct` literal using parentheses as delimiters and emit
targeted suggestion instead of type ascription parse error.
Fix#61326.
Revert anon union parsing
Revert PR #84571 and #85515, which implemented anonymous union parsing in a manner that broke the context-sensitivity for the `union` keyword and thus broke stable Rust code.
Fix#88583.
Accept `m!{ .. }.method()` and `m!{ .. }?` statements.
This PR fixes something that I keep running into when using `quote!{}.into()` in a proc macro to convert the `proc_macro2::TokenStream` to a `proc_macro::TokenStream`:
Before:
```
error: expected expression, found `.`
--> src/lib.rs:6:6
|
4 | quote! {
5 | ...
6 | }.into()
| ^ expected expression
```
After:
```
```
(No output, compiles fine.)
---
Context:
For expressions like `{ 1 }` and `if true { 1 } else { 2 }`, we accept them as full statements without a trailing `;`, which means the following is not accepted:
```rust
{ 1 } - 1 // error
```
since that is parsed as two statements: `{ 1 }` and `-1`. Syntactically correct, but the type of `{ 1 }` should be `()` as there is no `;`.
However, for specifically `.` and `?` after the `}`, we do [continue parsing it as an expression](13db8440bb/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs (L864-L876)):
```rust
{ "abc" }.len(); // ok
```
For braced macro invocations, we do not do this:
```rust
vec![1, 2, 3].len(); // ok
vec!{1, 2, 3}.len(); // error
```
(It parses `vec!{1, 2, 3}` as a full statement, and then complains about `.len()` not being a valid expression.)
This PR changes this to also look for a `.` and `?` after a braced macro invocation. We can be sure the macro is an expression and not a full statement in those cases, since no statement can start with a `.` or `?`.
Use smaller spans for some structured suggestions
Use more accurate suggestion spans for
* argument parse error
* fully qualified path
* missing code block type
* numeric casts
Change more x64 size checks to not apply to x32.
Commit 95e096d6 changed a bunch of size checks already, but more have
been added, so this fixes the new ones the same way: the various size
checks that are conditional on target_arch = "x86_64" were not intended
to apply to x86_64-unknown-linux-gnux32, so add
target_pointer_width = "64" to the conditions.
This commit focuses on emitting clean errors for the following syntax
error:
```
Some(42).map(|a|
dbg!(a);
a
);
```
Previous implementation tried to recover after parsing the closure body
(the `dbg` expression) by replacing the next `;` with a `,`, which made
the next expression belong to the next function argument. As such, the
following errors were emitted (among others):
- the semicolon token was not expected,
- a is not in scope,
- Option::map is supposed to take one argument, not two.
This commit allows us to gracefully handle this situation by adding
giving the parser the ability to remember when it has just parsed a
closure body inside a function call. When this happens, we can treat the
unexpected `;` specifically and try to parse as much statements as
possible in order to eat the whole block. When we can't parse statements
anymore, we generate a clean error indicating that the braces are
missing, and return an ExprKind::Err.
This reverts commit 059b68dd67.
Note that this was manually adjusted to retain some of the refactoring
introduced by commit 059b68dd67, so that it could
likewise retain the correction introduced in commit
5b4bc05fa5
Improve diagnostics for unary plus operators (#88276)
This pull request improves the diagnostics emitted on parsing a unary plus operator. See #88276.
Before:
```
error: expected expression, found `+`
--> src/main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let x = +1;
| ^ expected expression
```
After:
```
error: leading `+` is not supported
--> main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let x = +1;
| ^
| |
| unexpected `+`
| help: try removing the `+`
```
Commit 95e096d6 changed a bunch of size checks already, but more have
been added, so this fixes the new ones the same way: the various size
checks that are conditional on target_arch = "x86_64" were not intended
to apply to x86_64-unknown-linux-gnux32, so add
target_pointer_width = "64" to the conditions.
Detect bare blocks with type ascription that were meant to be a `struct` literal
Address part of #34255.
Potential improvement: silence the other knock down errors in `issue-34255-1.rs`.
Point at unclosed delimiters as part of the primary MultiSpan
Both the place where the parser encounters a needed closed delimiter and
the unclosed opening delimiter are important, so they should get the
same level of highlighting in the output.
_Context: https://twitter.com/mwk4/status/1430631546432675840_
Introduce `let...else`
Tracking issue: #87335
The trickiest part for me was enforcing the diverging else block with clear diagnostics. Perhaps the obvious solution is to expand to `let _: ! = ..`, but I decided against this because, when a "mismatched type" error is found in typeck, there is no way to trace where in the HIR the expected type originated, AFAICT. In order to pass down this information, I believe we should introduce `Expectation::LetElseNever(HirId)` or maybe add `HirId` to `Expectation::HasType`, but I left that as a future enhancement. For now, I simply assert that the block is `!` with a custom `ObligationCauseCode`, and I think this is clear enough, at least to start. The downside here is that the error points at the entire block rather than the specific expression with the wrong type. I left a todo to this effect.
Overall, I believe this PR is feature-complete with regard to the RFC.
Old error output:
3 | let _: usize = $f;
| ----- ^ expected `usize`, found struct `Baz`
| |
| expected due to this
New error output:
3 | let _: usize = $f;
| ----- ^^ expected `usize`, found struct `Baz`
| |
| expected due to this
Old error output:
= note: this warning originates in the macro `foo` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
help: wrap this expression in parentheses
|
4 | break '_l $f(;)
| ^ ^
New error output:
= note: this warning originates in the macro `foo` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
help: wrap this expression in parentheses
|
4 | break '_l ($f);
| ^ ^
Both the place where the parser encounters a needed closed delimiter and
the unclosed opening delimiter are important, so they should get the
same level of highlighting in the output.
- [x] Removed `?const` and change uses of `?const`
- [x] Added `~const` to the AST. It is gated behind const_trait_impl.
- [x] Validate `~const` in ast_validation.
- [ ] Add enum `BoundConstness` to the HIR. (With variants `NotConst` and
`ConstIfConst` allowing future extensions)
- [ ] Adjust trait selection and pre-existing code to use `BoundConstness`.
- [ ] Optional steps (*for this PR, obviously*)
- [ ] Fix#88155
- [ ] Do something with constness bounds in chalk
Allow labeled loops as value expressions for `break`
Fixes#86948. This is currently allowed:
```rust
return 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
break ('label: loop { break 'label 42; });
break 1 + 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
break 'outer 'inner: loop { break 'inner 42; };
```
But not this:
```rust
break 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
```
I have fixed this, so that the above now parses as an unlabeled break with a labeled loop as its value expression.
Fix a parser ICE on invalid `fn` body
Fixes#87635
A better fix would add a check for `fn` body on `expected_one_of_not_found` but I haven't come up with a graceful way. Any idea?
r? ```@oli-obk``` ```@estebank```
After this commit, `unsafe async fn ...` now suggests the `async unsafe` fix
instead of misunderstanding the issue.
This is not perfect for repeated keywords (`const async const`) and for
keywords that are misplaced after `extern "some abi"` because of the way
`check_fn_font_matter` works, but changing it breaks so many tests and
diagnostics it has been judged too high a cost for this PR.
