There is code for converting `Attribute` (syntactic) to `MetaItem`
(semantic). There is also code for the reverse direction. The reverse
direction isn't really necessary; it's currently only used when
generating attributes, e.g. in `derive` code.
This commit adds some new functions for creating `Attributes`s directly,
without involving `MetaItem`s: `mk_attr_word`, `mk_attr_name_value_str`,
`mk_attr_nested_word`, and
`ExtCtxt::attr_{word,name_value_str,nested_word}`.
These new methods replace the old functions for creating `Attribute`s:
`mk_attr_inner`, `mk_attr_outer`, and `ExtCtxt::attribute`. Those
functions took `MetaItem`s as input, and relied on many other functions
that created `MetaItems`, which are also removed: `mk_name_value_item`,
`mk_list_item`, `mk_word_item`, `mk_nested_word_item`,
`{MetaItem,MetaItemKind,NestedMetaItem}::token_trees`,
`MetaItemKind::attr_args`, `MetaItemLit::{from_lit_kind,to_token}`,
`ExtCtxt::meta_word`.
Overall this cuts more than 100 lines of code and makes thing simpler.
In `Expander::expand` the code currently uses `mk_attr_outer` to convert
a `MetaItem` to an `Attribute`, and then follows that with
`meta_item_list` which converts back. This commit avoids the unnecessary
conversions.
There was one wrinkle: the existing conversions caused the bogus `<>` on
`Default<>` to be removed. With the conversion gone, we get a second
error message about the `<>`. This is a rare case, so I think it
probably doesn't matter much.
`check_builtin_attribute` calls `parse_meta` to convert an `Attribute`
to a `MetaItem`, which it then checks. However, many callers of
`check_builtin_attribute` start with a `MetaItem`, and then convert it
to an `Attribute` by calling `cx.attribute(meta_item)`. This `MetaItem`
to `Attribute` to `MetaItem` conversion is silly.
This commit adds a new function `check_builtin_meta_item`, which can be
called instead from these call sites. `check_builtin_attribute` also now
calls it. The commit also renames `check_meta` as `check_attr` to better
match its arguments.
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #104804 (Rename `ast::Lit` as `ast::MetaItemLit`.)
- #104891 (Add documentation for `has_escaping_bound_vars`)
- #104933 (interpret: remove PartialOrd from a bunch of types that do not have or need a sensible order)
- #104936 (Ignore bivariant parameters in test_type_match.)
- #104954 (make simple check of prinf function)
- #104956 (Avoid ICE if the Clone trait is not found while building error suggestions)
- #104982 (interpret: get rid of run() function)
- #104998 (Update my mailmap)
- #105006 (stricter alignment enforcement for ScalarPair)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
stricter alignment enforcement for ScalarPair
`@eddyb` [indicated](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103926#discussion_r1033315005) that alignment violating this check might be a bug. So let's see what the test suite says.
(Only the 2nd commit actually changes behavior... but I couldn't not do that other cleanup.^^)
Does the PR CI runner even enable debug assertions though...?
make simple check of prinf function
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/92898
With this commit we start to make some simple
check when the name resolution fails, and
we generate some helper messages in case the
name is a C name like in the case of the `printf`
and suggest the correct rust method.
`@rustbot` r? `@pnkfelix`
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
Ignore bivariant parameters in test_type_match.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103491 made opaque types bivariant with respect of some of their lifetime parameters. Because of this bivariance, some lifetime variables were not unified to anything during borrowck, and were considered as unequal by borrowck type test.
This PR makes type test ignore the bivariant parameters in test_type_match.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104815
r? `@oli-obk`
Add documentation for `has_escaping_bound_vars`
Thanks to `@BoxyUwU` for explaining this to me. Adding docs with a helpful link if people get confused.
Update VecDeque implementation to use head+len instead of head+tail
(See #99805)
This changes `alloc::collections::VecDeque`'s internal representation from using head and tail indices to using a head index and a length field. It has a few advantages over the current design:
* It allows the buffer to be of length 0, which means the `VecDeque::new` new longer has to allocate and could be changed to a `const fn`
* It allows the `VecDeque` to fill the buffer completely, unlike the old implementation, which always had to leave a free space
* It removes the restriction for the size to be a power of two, allowing it to properly `shrink_to_fit`, unlike the old `VecDeque`
* The above points also combine to allow the `Vec<T> -> VecDeque<T>` conversion to be very cheap and guaranteed O(1). I mention this in the `From<Vec<T>>` impl, but it's not a strong guarantee just yet, as that would likely need some form of API change proposal.
All the tests seem to pass for the new `VecDeque`, with some slight adjustments.
r? `@scottmcm`
Remove `SelectionContext::infcx()` in favor of field access
Encapsulation doesn't seem particularly important here, and having two choices is always more confusing than having one.
r? types
Change multiline span ASCII art visual order
Tweak the ASCII art for nested multiline spans so that we minimize line overlaps.
Partially addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61017.
`Lit::from_included_bytes` calls `Lit::from_lit_kind`, but the two call
sites only need the resulting `token::Lit`, not the full `ast::Lit`.
This commit changes those call sites to use `LitKind::to_token_lit`,
which means `from_included_bytes` can be removed.
Remove Crate::primitives field
It is a new approach to #90447. Instead of removing primitives from everywhere (ie from `BadImplStripper`), I just removed them from the `Crate` type, allowing to reduce its size.
cc `@camelid`
r? `@notriddle`
Prefer doc comments over `//`-comments in compiler
Doc comments are generally nicer: they show up in the documentation, they are shown in IDEs when you hover other mentions of items, etc. Thus it makes sense to use them instead of `//`-comments.
Rustup
No changes happened on the rustc side, but I want to do a push next and would rather make josh's life easier by integrating some recent history first.
