Implement negative bounds for internal testing purposes
Implements partial support the `!` negative polarity on trait bounds. This is incomplete, but should allow us to at least be able to play with the feature.
Not even gonna consider them as a public-facing feature, but I'm implementing them because would've been nice to have in UI tests, for example in #110671.
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
My type ascription
Oh rip it out
Ah
If you think we live too much then
You can sacrifice diagnostics
Don't mix your garbage
Into my syntax
So many weird hacks keep diagnostics alive
Yet I don't even step outside
So many bad diagnostics keep tyasc alive
Yet tyasc doesn't even bother to survive!
Tweak await span to not contain dot
Fixes a discrepancy between method calls and await expressions where the latter are desugared to have a span that *contains* the dot (i.e. `.await`) but method call identifiers don't contain the dot. This leads to weird suggestions suggestions in borrowck -- see linked issue.
Fixes#110761
This mostly touches a bunch of tests to tighten their `await` span.
Add `rustc_fluent_macro` to decouple fluent from `rustc_macros`
Fluent, with all the icu4x it brings in, takes quite some time to compile. `fluent_messages!` is only needed in further downstream rustc crates, but is blocking more upstream crates like `rustc_index`. By splitting it out, we allow `rustc_macros` to be compiled earlier, which speeds up `x check compiler` by about 5 seconds (and even more after the needless dependency on `serde_json` is removed from `rustc_data_structures`).
Fluent, with all the icu4x it brings in, takes quite some time to
compile. `fluent_messages!` is only needed in further downstream rustc
crates, but is blocking more upstream crates like `rustc_index`. By
splitting it out, we allow `rustc_macros` to be compiled earlier, which
speeds up `x check compiler` by about 5 seconds (and even more after the
needless dependency on `serde_json` is removed from
`rustc_data_structures`).
Remove `..` from return type notation
`@nikomatsakis` and I decided that using `..` in the return-type notation syntax is probably overkill.
r? `@eholk` since you reviewed the last one
Since this is piggybacking now totally off of a pre-existing syntax (parenthesized generics), let me know if you need any explanation of the logic here, since it's a bit more complicated now.
Avoid a few locks
We can use atomics or datastructures tuned for specific access patterns instead of locks. This may be an improvement for parallel rustc, but it's mostly a cleanup making various datastructures only usable in the way they are used right now (append data, never mutate), instead of having a general purpose lock.
Remove the `NodeId` of `ast::ExprKind::Async`
This is a followup to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104833#pullrequestreview-1314537416.
In my original attempt, I was using `LoweringContext::expr`, which was not correct as it creates a fresh `DefId`.
It now uses the correct `DefId` for the wrapping `Expr`, and also makes forwarding `#[track_caller]` attributes more explicit.
Remove `box_syntax`
r? `@Nilstrieb`
This removes the feature `box_syntax`, which allows the use of `box <expr>` to create a Box, and finalises removing use of the feature from the compiler. `box_patterns` (allowing the use of `box <pat>` in a pattern) is unaffected.
It also removes `ast::ExprKind::Box` - the only way to create a 'box' expression now is with the rustc-internal `#[rustc_box]` attribute.
As a temporary measure to help users move away, `box <expr>` now parses the inner expression, and emits a `MachineApplicable` lint to replace it with `Box::new`
Closes#49733
Gate usages of `dyn*` and const closures in macros
We silently accepted `dyn*` and const closures in macros as long as they didn't expand to anything containing these experimental features, unlike other gated features such as `for<'a>` binders on closures, etc. Let's not do that, to make sure nobody begins relying on this.
This makes it easier to open the messages file while developing on features.
The commit was the result of automatted changes:
for p in compiler/rustc_*; do mv $p/locales/en-US.ftl $p/messages.ftl; rmdir $p/locales; done
for p in compiler/rustc_*; do sed -i "s#\.\./locales/en-US.ftl#../messages.ftl#" $p/src/lib.rs; done
feat/refactor: improve errors in case of ident with number at start
Improve parser code when we parse a integer (or float) literal but expect an identifier. We emit an error message saying that identifiers can't begin with numbers. This PR just improves that code and expands it to all identifiers. Note that I haven't implemented error recovery (this didn't exist before anyway), I might do that in a follow up PR.
Replace parse_[sth]_expr with parse_expr_[sth] function names
This resolves an inconsistency in naming style for functions on the parser, where:
* functions parsing specific kinds of items are named `parse_item_[sth]` and
* functions parsing specific kinds of *expressions* are named `parse_[sth]_expr`
favoring the style used by functions for items. There are multiple advantages of that style:
* functions of both categories are collected in the same place in the [rustdoc output](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_parse/parser/struct.Parser.html).
* it helps with autocompletion, as you can narrow down your search for a function to those about expressions.
* it mirrors rust's path syntax where less specific things come first, then it gets more specific, i.e. `std::collections::hash_map::Entry`.
The disadvantage is that it doesn't "read like a sentence" any more. But I think the advantages weigh more greatly.
This change was mostly application of this command:
```
sed -i -E 's/(fn |\.)parse_([[:alnum:]_]+)_expr/\1parse_expr_\2/' compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/*.rs
```
Plus very minor fixes outside of `rustc_parse`, and an invocation of `x fmt`.
This resolves an inconsistency in naming style for functions
on the parser, between functions parsing specific kinds of items
and those for expressions, favoring the parse_item_[sth] style
used by functions for items. There are multiple advantages
of that style:
* functions of both categories are collected in the same place
in the rustdoc output.
* it helps with autocompletion, as you can narrow down your
search for a function to those about expressions.
* it mirrors rust's path syntax where less specific things
come first, then it gets more specific, i.e.
std::collections::hash_map::Entry
The disadvantage is that it doesn't "read like a sentence"
any more, but I think the advantages weigh more greatly.
This change was mostly application of this command:
sed -i -E 's/(fn |\.)parse_([[:alnum:]_]+)_expr/\1parse_expr_\2/' compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/*.rs
Plus very minor fixes outside of rustc_parse, and an invocation
of x fmt.
We currently provide wrong suggestions and unhelpful errors on closure
bodies with braces missing. For example, given the following code:
```
fn main() {
let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
}
```
the current output is like this:
```
error: expected expression, found `)`
--> ./main.rs:2:30
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^ expected expression
error: closure bodies that contain statements must be surrounded by braces
--> ./main.rs:2:25
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^
3 | }
| ^
|
...
help: try adding braces
|
2 ~ let _x = Box::new(|x| {x+1;);
3 ~ }}
...
error: expected `;`, found `}`
--> ./main.rs:2:32
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^ help: add `;` here
3 | }
| - unexpected token
error: aborting due to 3 previous errors
```
This commit allows outputting correct suggestions and errors. The above
code would output like this:
```
error: closure bodies that contain statements must be surrounded by braces
--> ./main.rs:2:25
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^ ^
|
note: statement found outside of a block
--> ./main.rs:2:29
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ---^ this `;` turns the preceding closure into a statement
| |
| this expression is a statement because of the trailing semicolon
note: the closure body may be incorrectly delimited
--> ./main.rs:2:23
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^^^^^^ - ...but likely you meant the closure to end here
| |
| this is the parsed closure...
help: try adding braces
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x| {x+1;});
| + +
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Instead of loading the Fluent resources for every crate in
`rustc_error_messages`, each crate generates typed identifiers for its
own diagnostics and creates a static which are pulled together in the
`rustc_driver` crate and provided to the diagnostic emitter.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
