Properly record metavar spans for other expansions other than TT
This properly records metavar spans for nonterminals other than tokentree. This means that we operations like `span.to(other_span)` work correctly for macros. As you can see, other diagnostics involving metavars have improved as a result.
Fixes#132908
Alternative to #133270
cc `@ehuss`
cc `@petrochenkov`
Consider comments and bare delimiters the same as an "empty line" for purposes of hiding rendered code output of long multispans. This results in more aggressive shortening of rendered output without losing too much context, specially in `*.stderr` tests that have "hidden" comments.
Compiletest: add proc-macro header
This adds a `proc-macro` header to simplify using proc-macros, and to reduce boilerplate. This header works similar to the `aux-build` header where you pass a path for a proc-macro to be built.
This allows the `force-host`, `no-prefer-dynamic` headers, and `crate_type` attribute to be removed. Additionally it uses `--extern` like `aux_crate` (allows implicit `extern crate` in 2018) and `--extern proc_macro` (to place in the prelude in 2018).
~~This also includes a secondary change which defaults the edition of proc-macros to 2024. This further reduces boilerplate (removing `extern crate proc_macro;`), and allows using modern Rust syntax. I was a little on the fence including this. I personally prefer it, but I can imagine it might be confusing to others.~~ EDIT: Removed
Some tests were changed so that when there is a chain of dependencies A→B→C, that the `@ proc-macro` is placed in `B` instead of `A` so that the `--extern` flag works correctly (previously it depended on `-L` to find `C`). I think this is better to make the dependencies more explicit. None of these tests looked like the were actually testing this behavior.
There is one test that had an unexplained output change: `tests/ui/macros/same-sequence-span.rs`. I do not know why it changed, but it didn't look like it was particularly important. Perhaps there was a normalization issue?
This is currently not compatible with the rustdoc `build-aux-docs` header. It can probably be fixed, I'm just not feeling motivated to do that right now.
### Implementation steps
- [x] Document this new behavior in rustc-dev-guide once we figure out the specifics. https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide/pull/2149
Use edition of `macro_rules` when compiling the macro
This changes the edition assigned to a macro_rules macro when it is compiled to use the edition of where the macro came from instead of the local crate's edition.
This fixes a problem when a macro_rules macro is created by a proc-macro. Previously that macro would be tagged with the local edition, which would cause problems with using the correct edition behavior inside the macro. For example, the check for unsafe attributes would cause errors in 2024 when using proc-macros from older editions.
This is partially related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132906. Unfortunately this is only a half fix for that issue. It fixes the error that happens in 2024, but does not fix the lint firing in 2021. I'm still trying to think of some way to fix that, but I'm running low on ideas.
Stabilize `unsafe_attributes`
# Stabilization report
## Summary
This is a tracking issue for the RFC 3325: unsafe attributes
We are stabilizing `#![feature(unsafe_attributes)]`, which makes certain attributes considered 'unsafe', meaning that they must be surrounded by an `unsafe(...)`, as in `#[unsafe(no_mangle)]`.
RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#3325
Tracking issue: #123757
## What is stabilized
### Summary of stabilization
Certain attributes will now be designated as unsafe attributes, namely, `no_mangle`, `export_name`, and `link_section` (stable only), and these attributes will need to be called by surrounding them in `unsafe(...)` syntax. On editions prior to 2024, this is simply an edition lint, but it will become a hard error in 2024. This also works in `cfg_attr`, but `unsafe` is not allowed for any other attributes, including proc-macros ones.
```rust
#[unsafe(no_mangle)]
fn a() {}
#[cfg_attr(any(), unsafe(export_name = "c"))]
fn b() {}
```
For a table showing the attributes that were considered to be included in the list to require unsafe, and subsequent reasoning about why each such attribute was or was not included, see [this comment here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124214#issuecomment-2124753464)
## Tests
The relevant tests are in `tests/ui/rust-2024/unsafe-attributes` and `tests/ui/attributes/unsafe`.
Add migration lint for 2024 prelude additions
This adds the migration lint for the newly ambiguous methods `poll` and `into_future`. When these methods are used on types implementing the respective traits, it will be ambiguous in the future, which can lead to hard errors or behavior changes depending on the exact circumstances.
tracked by #121042
<!--
If this PR is related to an unstable feature or an otherwise tracked effort,
please link to the relevant tracking issue here. If you don't know of a related
tracking issue or there are none, feel free to ignore this.
This PR will get automatically assigned to a reviewer. In case you would like
a specific user to review your work, you can assign it to them by using
r? <reviewer name>
-->
r? compiler-errors as the method prober
This adds the migration lint for the newly ambiguous methods `poll` and
`into_future`. When these methods are used on types implementing the
respective traits, it will be ambiguous in the future, which can lead to
hard errors or behavior changes depending on the exact circumstances.
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.
