Rename `${length()}` to `${len()}`
Implements the rename suggested in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122808#issuecomment-2047722187
> I brought this up in the doc PR but it belongs here – `length` should probably be renamed `len` before stabilization. The latter is de facto standard in the standard library, whereas the former is only used in a single unstable API. These metafunctions aren’t library items of course, but should presumably still be consistent with established names.
r? `@c410-f3r`
Fix the dedup error because of spans from suggestion
Fixes#116502
I believe this kind of issue is supposed resolved by #118057, but the `==` in `span` respect syntax context, here we should only care that they point to the same bytes of source text, so should use `source_equal`.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #119838 (style-guide: When breaking binops handle multi-line first operand better)
- #124844 (Use a proper probe for shadowing impl)
- #125047 (Migrate `run-make/issue-14500` to new `rmake.rs` format)
- #125080 (only find segs chain for missing methods when no available candidates)
- #125088 (Uplift `AliasTy` and `AliasTerm`)
- #125100 (Don't do post-method-probe error reporting steps if we're in a suggestion)
- #125118 (Use new utility functions/methods in run-make tests)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Don't do post-method-probe error reporting steps if we're in a suggestion
Currently in method probing, if we fail to pick a method, then we reset and try to collect relevant candidates for method errors:
34582118af/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/method/probe.rs (L953-L993)
However, we do method lookups via `lookup_method_for_diagnostic` and only care about the result if the method probe was a *success*.
Namely, we don't need to do a bunch of other lookups on failure, since we throw away these results anyways, such as an expensive call to:
34582118af/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/method/probe.rs (L959)
And:
34582118af/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/method/probe.rs (L985)
---
This PR also renames some methods so it's clear that they're for diagnostics.
r? `@nnethercote`
only find segs chain for missing methods when no available candidates
Fixes#124946
This PR includes two changes:
- Extracting the lookup for the missing method in chains into a single function.
- Calling this function only when there are no candidates available.
Warn against changes in opaque lifetime captures in 2024
Adds a (mostly[^1]) machine-applicable lint `IMPL_TRAIT_OVERCAPTURES` which detects cases where we will capture more lifetimes in edition 2024 than in edition <= 2021, which may lead to erroneous borrowck errors.
This lint is gated behind the `precise_capturing` feature gate and marked `Allow` for now.
[^1]: Except when there are APITs -- I may work on that soon
r? oli-obk
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #116675 ([ptr] Document maximum allocation size)
- #124997 (Fix ICE while casting a type with error)
- #125072 (Add test for dynamic dispatch + Pin::new soundness)
- #125090 (Migrate fuchsia docs from `pm` to `ffx`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Remove `NtIdent` and `NtLifetime`
This is one part of the bigger "remove `Nonterminal` and `TokenKind::Interpolated`" change drafted in #114647. More details in the individual commit messages.
r? `@petrochenkov`
This span records the declaration of the metavariable in the LHS of the macro.
It's used in a couple of error messages. Unfortunately, it gets in the way of
the long-term goal of removing `TokenKind::Interpolated`. So this commit
removes it, which degrades a couple of (obscure) error messages but makes
things simpler and enables the next commit.
Pretty-print let-else with added parenthesization when needed
Rustc used to produce invalid syntax for the following code, which is problematic because it means we cannot apply rustfmt to the output of `-Zunpretty=expanded`.
```rust
macro_rules! expr {
($e:expr) => { $e };
}
fn main() {
let _ = expr!(loop {}) else { return; };
}
```
```console
$ rustc repro.rs -Zunpretty=expanded | rustfmt
error: `loop...else` loops are not supported
--> <stdin>:9:29
|
9 | fn main() { let _ = loop {} else { return; }; }
| ---- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| `else` is attached to this loop
|
= note: consider moving this `else` clause to a separate `if` statement and use a `bool` variable to control if it should run
```
Unfortunately, we can't always offer a machine-applicable suggestion when there are subpatterns from macro expansion.
Co-Authored-By: Guillaume Boisseau <Nadrieril@users.noreply.github.com>
Fix, document, and test parser and pretty-printer edge cases related to braced macro calls
_Review note: this is a deceptively small PR because it comes with 145 lines of docs and 196 lines of tests, and only 25 lines of compiler code changed. However, I recommend reviewing it 1 commit at a time because much of the effect of the code changes is non-local i.e. affecting code that is not visible in the final state of the PR. I have paid attention that reviewing the PR one commit at a time is as easy as I can make it. All of the code you need to know about is touched in those commits, even if some of those changes disappear by the end of the stack._
This is a follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119105. One case that is not relevant to `-Zunpretty=expanded`, but which came up as I'm porting #119105 and #118726 into `syn`'s printer and `prettyplease`'s printer where it **is** relevant, and is also relevant to rustc's `stringify!`, is statement boundaries in the vicinity of braced macro calls.
Rustc's AST pretty-printer produces invalid syntax for statements that begin with a braced macro call:
```rust
macro_rules! stringify_item {
($i:item) => {
stringify!($i)
};
}
macro_rules! repro {
($e:expr) => {
stringify_item!(fn main() { $e + 1; })
};
}
fn main() {
println!("{}", repro!(m! {}));
}
```
**Before this PR:** output is not valid Rust syntax.
```console
fn main() { m! {} + 1; }
```
```console
error: leading `+` is not supported
--> <anon>:1:19
|
1 | fn main() { m! {} + 1; }
| ^ unexpected `+`
|
help: try removing the `+`
|
1 - fn main() { m! {} + 1; }
1 + fn main() { m! {} 1; }
|
```
**After this PR:** valid syntax.
```console
fn main() { (m! {}) + 1; }
```
The change to the test is a little goofy because the compiler was
guessing "correctly" before that `falsy! {}` is the condition as opposed
to the else body. But I believe this change is fundamentally correct.
Braced macro invocations in statement position are most often item-like
(`thread_local! {...}`) as opposed to parenthesized macro invocations
which are condition-like (`cfg!(...)`).
Clean up users of rust_dbg_call
`rust_dbg_call` is a C test helper that until this PR was declared in C with `void*` arguments and used in Rust _mostly_ with `libc::uintptr_t` arguments. Nearly every user just wants to pass integers around, so I've changed all users to `uint64_t` or `u64`.
The single test that actually used the pointer-ness of the argument is a test for ensuring that Rust can make extern calls outside of tasks. Rust hasn't had tasks for quite a few years now, so I'm deleting that test under the same logic as the test deleted in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124073
