Currently we always do this:
```
use rustc_fluent_macro::fluent_messages;
...
fluent_messages! { "./example.ftl" }
```
But there is no need, we can just do this everywhere:
```
rustc_fluent_macro::fluent_messages! { "./example.ftl" }
```
which is shorter.
The `fluent_messages!` macro produces uses of
`crate::{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage`, which means that every crate using
the macro must have this import:
```
use rustc_errors::{DiagnosticMessage, SubdiagnosticMessage};
```
This commit changes the macro to instead use
`rustc_errors::{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage`, which avoids the need for the
imports.
improve tool-only help for multiple `#[default]` variants
When defining an enum with multiple `#[default]` variants, we emit a tool-only suggestion for every `#[default]`ed variant to remove all other `#[default]`s. This PR improves the suggestion to correctly handle the cases where one variant has multiple `#[default]`s and where different `#[default]`s have the same span due to macro expansions.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118119
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.
- Sort dependencies and features sections.
- Add `tidy` markers to the sorted sections so they stay sorted.
- Remove empty `[lib`] sections.
- Remove "See more keys..." comments.
Excluded files:
- rustc_codegen_{cranelift,gcc}, because they're external.
- rustc_lexer, because it has external use.
- stable_mir, because it has external use.
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.
