Modernize rustc_builtin_macros generics helpers
- Rustfmt-compatible formatting for the code snippets in comments
- Eliminate an _"Extra scope required"_ obsoleted by NLL
Format all the let-chains in compiler crates
Since rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 has landed, soon we will have support for formatting let-chains (as soon as rustfmt syncs and beta gets bumped).
This PR applies the changes [from master rustfmt to rust-lang/rust eagerly](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/122651-general/topic/out.20formatting.20of.20prs/near/374997516), so that the next beta bump does not have to deal with a 200+ file diff and can remain concerned with other things like `cfg(bootstrap)` -- #113637 was a pain to land, for example, because of let-else.
I will also add this commit to the ignore list after it has landed.
The commands that were run -- I'm not great at bash-foo, but this applies rustfmt to every compiler crate, and then reverts the two crates that should probably be formatted out-of-tree.
```
~/rustfmt $ ls -1d ~/rust/compiler/* | xargs -I@ cargo run --bin rustfmt -- `@/src/lib.rs` --config-path ~/rust --edition=2021 # format all of the compiler crates
~/rust $ git checkout HEAD -- compiler/rustc_codegen_{gcc,cranelift} # revert changes to cg-gcc and cg-clif
```
cc `@rust-lang/rustfmt`
r? `@WaffleLapkin` or `@Nilstrieb` who said they may be able to review this purely mechanical PR :>
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` and `@petrochenkov,` who had some thoughts on the order of operations with big formatting changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95262#issue-1178993801. I think the situation has changed since then, given that let-chains support exists on master rustfmt now, and I'm fairly confident that this formatting PR should land even if *bootstrap* rustfmt doesn't yet format let-chains in order to lessen the burden of the next beta bump.
The assertion in `assert-long-condition.rs` used to be fail like this, all on
one line:
```
thread 'main' panicked at 'assertion failed: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18\n + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 == 0', tests/ui/macros/assert-long-condition.rs:7:5
```
The `\n` and subsequent indent is because the condition is pretty-printed, and
the pretty-printer inserts a newline. Printing the newline in this way is
arguably reasonable given that the message appears within single quotes, which
is very similar to a string literal.
However, after the assertion printing improvements that were released in 1.73,
the assertion now fails like this:
```
thread 'main' panicked at tests/ui/macros/assert-long-condition.rs:7:5:
assertion failed: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18\n + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 == 0
```
Now that there are no single quotes around the pretty-printed condition, the
`\n` is quite strange.
This commit gets rid of the `\n`, by removing the `escape_debug` done on the
pretty-printed message. This results in the following:
```
thread 'main' panicked at tests/ui/macros/assert-long-condition.rs:7:5:
assertion failed: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 + 18
+ 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 == 0
```
The overly-large indent is still strange, but that's a separate pretty-printing issue.
This change helps with #108341.
simplify inject_impl_of_structural_trait
There's a comment at `inject_impl_of_structural_trait` saying we cannot use `TraitDef`, but that comment is outdated -- we *can* use `TraitDef` nowadays since it has the `skip_path_as_bound` flag. (The flag needed some fixing, though.)
add diagnostic for raw identifiers in format string
Format strings don't support raw identifiers (e.g. `format!("{r#type}")`), but they do support keywords in the format string directly (e.g. `format!("{type}")`). This PR improves the error output when attempting to use a raw identifier in a format string and adds a machine-applicable suggestion to remove the `r#`.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115466
Improve invalid let expression handling
- Move all of the checks for valid let expression positions to parsing.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location.
- Suppress some later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
- Fix a (drop) scope issue that was also responsible for #104172.
Fixes#104172Fixes#104868
There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second
version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid
uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later
passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid
location, sometimes causing ICEs.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a
valid location.
- Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let
expressions.
Improve spans for indexing expressions
fixes#114388
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part, but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
r? compiler-errors
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary
left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part
of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part,
but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use
indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and
that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an
extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
It's the same as `Delimiter`, minus the `Invisible` variant. I'm
generally in favour of using types to make impossible states
unrepresentable, but this one feels very low-value, and the conversions
between the two types are annoying and confusing.
Look at the change in `src/tools/rustfmt/src/expr.rs` for an example:
the old code converted from `MacDelimiter` to `Delimiter` and back
again, for no good reason. This suggests the author was confused about
the types.
If a raw string was used in the `env!` invocation, then it should also
be shown in the diagnostic messages as a raw string.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
