When encountering code like `f::<f::<f::<f::<f::<f::<f::<f::<...` with
unmatched closing angle brackets, add a linear check that avoids the
exponential behavior of the parse recovery mechanism.
Fix#117080.
The new place makes more sense and covers more cases beyond individual
statements.
```
error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator, found doc comment `//!foo
--> $DIR/doc-comment-in-stmt.rs:25:22
|
LL | let y = x.max(1) //!foo
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator
|
help: add a space before `!` to write a regular comment
|
LL | let y = x.max(1) // !foo
| +
```
Fix#65329.
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.
Detect missing `=>` after match guard during parsing
```
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.
```
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.
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
- 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.
Add explanatory note to 'expected item' error
Fixes#113110
It changes the diagnostic from this:
```
error: expected item, found `5`
--> ../test.rs:1:1
|
1 | 5
| ^ expected item
```
to this:
```
error: expected item, found `5`
--> ../test.rs:1:1
|
1 | 5
| ^ expected item
|
= note: items are things that can appear at the root of a module
= note: for a full list see https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/items.html
```
It uses `once` chained with `(0..self.num_calls).map(...)` followed by
`.take(self.num_calls`. I found this hard to read. It's simpler to just
use `repeat_with`.
Make if let guard parsing consistent with normal guards
- Add tests that struct expressions are not allowed in `if let` and `while let` (no change, consistent with `if` and `while`)
- Allow struct expressions in `if let` guards (consistent with `if` guards).
r? `@cjgillot`
Closes#93817
cc #51114
suggest removing `impl` in generic trait bound position
rustc already does this recovery in type param position (`<T: impl Trait>` -> `<T: Trait>`).
This PR also adds that suggestion in trait bound position (e.g. `where T: impl Trait` or `trait Trait { type Assoc: impl Trait; }`)
parser: not insert dummy field in struct
Fixes#114636
This PR eliminates the dummy field, initially introduced in #113999, thereby enabling unrestricted use of `ident.unwrap()`. A side effect of this action is that we can only report the error of the first macro invocation field within the struct node.
An alternative solution might be giving a virtual name to the macro, but it appears more complex.(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114636#issuecomment-1670228715). Furthermore, if you think https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114636#issuecomment-1670228715 is a better solution, feel free to close this PR.
Parse unnamed fields and anonymous structs or unions (no-recovery)
It is part of #114782 which implements #49804. Only parse anonymous structs or unions in struct field definition positions.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Anonymous structs or unions are only allowed in struct field
definitions.
Co-authored-by: carbotaniuman <41451839+carbotaniuman@users.noreply.github.com>
`Nonterminal`-related cleanups
In #114647 I am trying to remove `Nonterminal`. It has a number of preliminary cleanups that are worth merging even if #114647 doesn't merge, so let's do them in this PR.
r? `@petrochenkov`
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.
Fix suggestion for attempting to define a string with single quotes
Currently attempting to compile `fn main() { let _ = '\\"'; }` will result in the following error message:
```
error: character literal may only contain one codepoint
--> src/main.rs:1:21
|
1 | fn main() { let _ = '\\"'; }
| ^^^^^
|
help: if you meant to write a `str` literal, use double quotes
|
1 | fn main() { let _ = "\\""; }
| ~~~~~
```
The suggestion is invalid as it fails to escape the `"`. This PR fixes the suggestion so that it now reads:
```
help: if you meant to write a `str` literal, use double quotes
|
1 | fn main() { let _ = "\\\""; }
| ~~~~~~
```
The relevant test is also updated to ensure that this does not regress in future.
