Remove special handling of `box` expressions from parser
#108471 added a temporary hack to parse `box expr`. It's been almost a year since then, so I think it's safe to remove the special handling.
As a drive-by cleanup, move `parser/removed-syntax*` tests to their own directory.
In #119606 I added them and used a `_mv` suffix, but that wasn't great.
A `with_` prefix has three different existing uses.
- Constructors, e.g. `Vec::with_capacity`.
- Wrappers that provide an environment to execute some code, e.g.
`with_session_globals`.
- Consuming chaining methods, e.g. `Span::with_{lo,hi,ctxt}`.
The third case is exactly what we want, so this commit changes
`DiagnosticBuilder::foo_mv` to `DiagnosticBuilder::with_foo`.
Thanks to @compiler-errors for the suggestion.
Instead of taking `seq` as a mutable reference,
`maybe_recover_struct_lit_bad_delims` now consumes `seq` on the recovery
path, and returns `seq` unchanged on the non-recovery path. The commit
also combines an `if` and a `match` to merge two identical paths.
Also change `recover_seq_parse_error` so it receives a `PErr` instead of
a `PResult`, because all the call sites now handle the `Ok`/`Err`
distinction themselves.
This works for most of its call sites. This is nice, because `emit` very
much makes sense as a consuming operation -- indeed,
`DiagnosticBuilderState` exists to ensure no diagnostic is emitted
twice, but it uses runtime checks.
For the small number of call sites where a consuming emit doesn't work,
the commit adds `DiagnosticBuilder::emit_without_consuming`. (This will
be removed in subsequent commits.)
Likewise, `emit_unless` becomes consuming. And `delay_as_bug` becomes
consuming, while `delay_as_bug_without_consuming` is added (which will
also be removed in subsequent commits.)
All this requires significant changes to `DiagnosticBuilder`'s chaining
methods. Currently `DiagnosticBuilder` method chaining uses a
non-consuming `&mut self -> &mut Self` style, which allows chaining to
be used when the chain ends in `emit()`, like so:
```
struct_err(msg).span(span).emit();
```
But it doesn't work when producing a `DiagnosticBuilder` value,
requiring this:
```
let mut err = self.struct_err(msg);
err.span(span);
err
```
This style of chaining won't work with consuming `emit` though. For
that, we need to use to a `self -> Self` style. That also would allow
`DiagnosticBuilder` production to be chained, e.g.:
```
self.struct_err(msg).span(span)
```
However, removing the `&mut self -> &mut Self` style would require that
individual modifications of a `DiagnosticBuilder` go from this:
```
err.span(span);
```
to this:
```
err = err.span(span);
```
There are *many* such places. I have a high tolerance for tedious
refactorings, but even I gave up after a long time trying to convert
them all.
Instead, this commit has it both ways: the existing `&mut self -> Self`
chaining methods are kept, and new `self -> Self` chaining methods are
added, all of which have a `_mv` suffix (short for "move"). Changes to
the existing `forward!` macro lets this happen with very little
additional boilerplate code. I chose to add the suffix to the new
chaining methods rather than the existing ones, because the number of
changes required is much smaller that way.
This doubled chainging is a bit clumsy, but I think it is worthwhile
because it allows a *lot* of good things to subsequently happen. In this
commit, there are many `mut` qualifiers removed in places where
diagnostics are emitted without being modified. In subsequent commits:
- chaining can be used more, making the code more concise;
- more use of chaining also permits the removal of redundant diagnostic
APIs like `struct_err_with_code`, which can be replaced easily with
`struct_err` + `code_mv`;
- `emit_without_diagnostic` can be removed, which simplifies a lot of
machinery, removing the need for `DiagnosticBuilderState`.
`IntoDiagnostic` defaults to `ErrorGuaranteed`, because errors are the
most common diagnostic level. It makes sense to do likewise for the
closely-related (and much more widely used) `DiagnosticBuilder` type,
letting us write `DiagnosticBuilder<'a, ErrorGuaranteed>` as just
`DiagnosticBuilder<'a>`. This cuts over 200 lines of code due to many
multi-line things becoming single line things.
Add support for `for await` loops
This adds support for `for await` loops. This includes parsing, desugaring in AST->HIR lowering, and adding some support functions to the library.
Given a loop like:
```rust
for await i in iter {
...
}
```
this is desugared to something like:
```rust
let mut iter = iter.into_async_iter();
while let Some(i) = loop {
match core::pin::Pin::new(&mut iter).poll_next(cx) {
Poll::Ready(i) => break i,
Poll::Pending => yield,
}
} {
...
}
```
This PR also adds a basic `IntoAsyncIterator` trait. This is partly for symmetry with the way `Iterator` and `IntoIterator` work. The other reason is that for async iterators it's helpful to have a place apart from the data structure being iterated over to store state. `IntoAsyncIterator` gives us a good place to do this.
I've gated this feature behind `async_for_loop` and opened #118898 as the feature tracking issue.
r? `@compiler-errors`
This commit replaces this pattern:
```
err.into_diagnostic(dcx)
```
with this pattern:
```
dcx.create_err(err)
```
in a lot of places.
It's a little shorter, makes the error level explicit, avoids some
`IntoDiagnostic` imports, and is a necessary prerequisite for the next
commit which will add a `level` arg to `into_diagnostic`.
This requires adding `track_caller` on `create_err` to avoid mucking up
the output of `tests/ui/track-diagnostics/track4.rs`. It probably should
have been there already.
Actually parse async gen blocks correctly
1. I got the control flow in `parse_expr_bottom` messed up, and obviously forgot a test for `async gen`, so we weren't actually ever parsing it correctly.
2. I forgot to gate the span for `async gen {}`, so even if we did parse it, we wouldn't have correctly denied it in `cfg(FALSE)`.
r? eholk
This is an extension of the previous commit. It means the output of
something like this:
```
stringify!(let a: Vec<u32> = vec![];)
```
goes from this:
```
let a: Vec<u32> = vec![] ;
```
With this PR, it now produces this string:
```
let a: Vec<u32> = vec![];
```
Introduce support for `async gen` blocks
I'm delighted to demonstrate that `async gen` block are not very difficult to support. They're simply coroutines that yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and return `()`.
**This PR is WIP and in draft mode for now** -- I'm mostly putting it up to show folks that it's possible. This PR needs a lang-team experiment associated with it or possible an RFC, since I don't think it falls under the jurisdiction of the `gen` RFC that was recently authored by oli (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3513, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078).
### Technical note on the pre-generator-transform yield type:
The reason that the underlying coroutines yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and not `Poll<T>` (which would make more sense, IMO, for the pre-transformed coroutine), is because the `TransformVisitor` that is used to turn coroutines into built-in state machine functions would have to destructure and reconstruct the latter into the former, which requires at least inserting a new basic block (for a `switchInt` terminator, to match on the `Poll` discriminant).
This does mean that the desugaring (at the `rustc_ast_lowering` level) of `async gen` blocks is a bit more involved. However, since we already need to intercept both `.await` and `yield` operators, I don't consider it much of a technical burden.
r? `@ghost`
never_patterns: Parse match arms with no body
Never patterns are meant to signal unreachable cases, and thus don't take bodies:
```rust
let ptr: *const Option<!> = ...;
match *ptr {
None => { foo(); }
Some(!),
}
```
This PR makes rustc accept the above, and enforces that an arm has a body xor is a never pattern. This affects parsing of match arms even with the feature off, so this is delicate. (Plus this is my first non-trivial change to the parser).
~~The last commit is optional; it introduces a bit of churn to allow the new suggestions to be machine-applicable. There may be a better solution? I'm not sure.~~ EDIT: I removed that commit
r? `@compiler-errors`
When encountering a bare assignment in a let-chain, suggest turning the
assignment into a `let` expression or an equality check.
```
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/bad-if-let-suggestion.rs:5:8
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i = 2 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
help: you might have meant to continue the let-chain
|
LL | if let x = 1 && let i = 2 {}
| +++
help: you might have meant to compare for equality
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i == 2 {}
| +
```
More detail when expecting expression but encountering bad macro argument
On nested macro invocations where the same macro fragment changes fragment type from one to the next, point at the chain of invocations and at the macro fragment definition place, explaining that the change has occurred.
Fix#71039.
```
error: expected expression, found pattern `1 + 1`
--> $DIR/trace_faulty_macros.rs:49:37
|
LL | (let $p:pat = $e:expr) => {test!(($p,$e))};
| ------- -- this is interpreted as expression, but it is expected to be pattern
| |
| this macro fragment matcher is expression
...
LL | (($p:pat, $e:pat)) => {let $p = $e;};
| ------ ^^ expected expression
| |
| this macro fragment matcher is pattern
...
LL | test!(let x = 1+1);
| ------------------
| | |
| | this is expected to be expression
| in this macro invocation
|
= note: when forwarding a matched fragment to another macro-by-example, matchers in the second macro will see an opaque AST of the fragment type, not the underlying tokens
= note: this error originates in the macro `test` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
Most notably, this commit changes the `pub use crate::*;` in that file
to `use crate::*;`. This requires a lot of `use` items in other crates
to be adjusted, because everything defined within `rustc_span::*` was
also available via `rustc_span::source_map::*`, which is bizarre.
The commit also removes `SourceMap::span_to_relative_line_string`, which
is unused.
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.
Detect ruby-style closure in parser
When parsing a closure without a body that is surrounded by a block, suggest moving the opening brace after the closure head.
Fix#116608.
```
error: expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`, found `.`
--> $DIR/missing-fat-arrow.rs:25:14
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b {
| - while parsing this struct
LL | a.value = 1;
| -^ expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`
| |
| while parsing this struct field
|
help: try naming a field
|
LL | a: a.value = 1;
| ++
help: you might have meant to start a match arm after the match guard
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b => {
| ++
```
Fix#78585.
- Add doc comment to new type
- Restore "only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions" note
- Rename variant with clearer name
Previously some invalid let expressions would result in both a feature
error and a parsing error. Avoid this and ensure that we only emit the
parsing error when this happens.
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.
It's much more complicated than it needs to be, and it doesn't modify
the expression. We can do the `Result` handling outside of it, and
change it to just return a span.
Also fix an errant comma that makes the comment hard to read.
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.
Similar to the last commit, it's more of a `Parser`-level concern than a
`TokenCursor`-level concern. And the struct size reductions are nice.
After this change, `TokenCursor` is as minimal as possible (two fields
and two methods) which is nice.
Fix invalid suggestion for mismatched types in closure arguments
This PR fixes the invalid suggestion for mismatched types in closure arguments.
The invalid suggestion came from a wrongly created span in the parser for closure arguments that don't have a type specified. Specifically, the span in this case was the last token span, but in the case of tuples, the span represented the last parenthesis instead of the whole tuple, which is fixed by taking the more accurate span of the pattern.
There is one unfortunate downside of this fix, it worsens even more the diagnostic for mismatched types in closure args without an explicit type. This happens because there is no correct span for implied inferred type. I tried also fixing this but it's a rabbit hole.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114180
The invalid suggestion came from a wrongly created span in `rustc_parse'
for closure arguments that didn't have a type specified. Specifically,
the span in this case was the last token span, but in the case of
tuples, the span represented the last parenthesis instead of the whole
tuple, which is fixed by taking the more accurate span of the pattern.
Per #112156, using `&` in `format!` may cause a small perf delay, so I tried to clean up one module at a time format usage. This PR includes a few removals of the ref in format (they do compile locally without the ref), as well as a few format inlining for consistency.
Implement builtin # syntax and use it for offset_of!(...)
Add `builtin #` syntax to the parser, as well as a generic infrastructure to support both item and expression position builtin syntaxes. The PR also uses this infrastructure for the implementation of the `offset_of!` macro, added by #106934.
cc `@petrochenkov` `@DrMeepster`
cc #110680 `builtin #` tracking issue
cc #106655 `offset_of!` tracking issue
add hint for =< as <=
Adds a compiler hint for when `=<` is typed instead of `<=`
Example hint:
```rust
fn foo() {
if 1 =< 3 {
println!("Hello, World!");
}
}
```
```
error: expected type, found `3`
--> main.rs:2:13
|
2 | if 1 =< 3 {
| -- ^ expected type
| |
| help: did you mean: `<=`
```
This PR only emits the suggestion if there is no space between the `=` and `<`. This hopefully narrows the scope of when this error is emitted, however this still allows this error to be emitted in cases such as this:
```
error: expected expression, found `;`
--> main.rs:2:18
|
2 | if 1 =< [i32;; 3]>::hello() {
| -- ^ expected expression
| |
| help: did you mean: `<=`
```
Which could be a good reason not to merge since I haven't been able to think of any other ways of narrowing the scope of this diagnostic.
closes#111128
