Currently, we parse macros at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }`) as expressions, rather than
statements. This means that a macro invoked in this position
cannot expand to items or semicolon-terminated expressions.
In the future, we might want to start parsing these kinds of macros
as statements. This would make expansion more 'token-based'
(i.e. macro expansion behaves (almost) as if you just textually
replaced the macro invocation with its output). However,
this is a breaking change (see PR #78991), so it will require
further discussion.
Since the current behavior will not be changing any time soon,
we need to address the interaction with the
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` lint. Since we are parsing
the result of macro expansion as an expression, we will emit a lint
if there's a trailing semicolon in the macro output. However, this
results in a somewhat confusing message for users, since it visually
looks like there should be no problem with having a semicolon
at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }` => `fn foo() { produced_expr; }`)
To help reduce confusion, this commit adds a note explaining
that the macro is being interpreted as an expression. Additionally,
we suggest adding a semicolon after the macro *invocation* - this
will cause us to parse the macro call as a statement. We do *not*
use a structured suggestion for this, since the user may actually
want to remove the semicolon from the macro definition (allowing
the block to evaluate to the expression produced by the macro).
Warn on inert attributes used on bang macro invocation
These attributes are currently discarded.
This may change in the future (see #63221), but for now,
placing inert attributes on a macro invocation does nothing,
so we should warn users about it.
Technically, it's possible for there to be attribute macro
on the same macro invocation (or at a higher scope), which
inspects the inert attribute. For example:
```rust
#[look_for_inline_attr]
#[inline]
my_macro!()
#[look_for_nested_inline]
mod foo { #[inline] my_macro!() }
```
However, this would be a very strange thing to do.
Anyone running into this can manually suppress the warning.
These attributes are currently discarded.
This may change in the future (see #63221), but for now,
placing inert attributes on a macro invocation does nothing,
so we should warn users about it.
Technically, it's possible for there to be attribute macro
on the same macro invocation (or at a higher scope), which
inspects the inert attribute. For example:
```rust
#[look_for_inline_attr]
#[inline]
my_macro!()
#[look_for_nested_inline]
mod foo { #[inline] my_macro!() }
```
However, this would be a very strange thing to do.
Anyone running into this can manually suppress the warning.
When we need to emit a lint at a macro invocation, we currently use the
`NodeId` of its parent definition (e.g. the enclosing function). This
means that any `#[allow]` / `#[deny]` attributes placed 'closer' to the
macro (e.g. on an enclosing block or statement) will have no effect.
This commit computes a better `lint_node_id` in `InvocationCollector`.
When we visit/flat_map an AST node, we assign it a `NodeId` (earlier
than we normally would), and store than `NodeId` in current
`ExpansionData`. When we collect a macro invocation, the current
`lint_node_id` gets cloned along with our `ExpansionData`, allowing it
to be used if we need to emit a lint later on.
This improves the handling of `#[allow]` / `#[deny]` for
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` and some `asm!`-related lints.
The 'legacy derive helpers' lint retains its current behavior
(I've inlined the now-removed `lint_node_id` function), since
there isn't an `ExpansionData` readily available.
It makes very little sense to maintain denylists of ABIs when, as far as
non-generic ABIs are concerned, targets usually only support a small
subset of the available ABIs.
This has historically been a cause of bugs such as us allowing use of
the platform-specific ABIs on x86 targets – these in turn would cause
LLVM errors or assertions to fire.
Fixes#57182
Sponsored by: standard.ai
Remove unused dependencies from compiler crates
Various compiler crates have dependencies that they don't appear to use. I used some scripting to detect such dependencies, filtered them based on some manual review, and removed those that do indeed appear to be entirely unused.
Turn non_fmt_panic into a future_incompatible edition lint.
This turns the `non_fmt_panic` lint into a future_incompatible edition lint, so it becomes part of the `rust_2021_compatibility` group. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85894.
This lint produces both warnings about semantical changes (e.g. `panic!("{{")`) and things that will become hard errors (e.g. `panic!("{")`). So I added a `explain_reason: false` that supresses the default "this will become a hard error" or "the semantics will change" message, and instead added a note depending on the situation. (cc `@rylev)`
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Add `future_prelude_collision` lint
Implements #84594. (RFC rust-lang/rfcs#3114 ([rendered](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3114-prelude-2021.md))) Not entirely complete but wanted to have my progress decently available while I finish off the last little bits.
Things left to implement:
* [x] UI tests for lints
* [x] Only emit lint for 2015 and 2018 editions
* [ ] Lint name/message bikeshedding
* [x] Implement for `FromIterator` (from best I can tell, the current approach as mentioned from [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/84594#issuecomment-847288288) won't work due to `FromIterator` instances not using dot-call syntax, but if I'm correct about this then that would also need to be fixed for `TryFrom`/`TryInto`)*
* [x] Add to `rust-2021-migration` group? (See #85512) (added to `rust-2021-compatibility` group)
* [ ] Link to edition guide in lint docs
*edit: looked into it, `lookup_method` will also not be hit for `TryFrom`/`TryInto` for non-dotcall syntax. If anyone who is more familiar with typecheck knows the equivalent for looking up associated functions, feel free to chime in.
Update BARE_TRAIT_OBJECT and ELLIPSIS_INCLUSIVE_RANGE_PATTERNS to errors in Rust 2021
This addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81244 by updating two lints to errors in the Rust 2021 edition.
r? `@estebank`
resolve: Partially unify early and late scope-relative identifier resolution
Reuse `early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` instead of a chunk of code in `resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` doing the same job.
`early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope`/`visit_scopes` had to be slightly extended to be able to 1) start from a specific module instead of the current parent scope and 2) report one deprecation lint.
`early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` still doesn't support walking through "ribs", that part is left in `resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope` (moreover, I'm pretty sure it's buggy, but that's a separate issue, cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/52389 at least).
Now that future-incompat-report support has landed in nightly Cargo, we
can start to make progress towards removing the various proc-macro
back-compat hacks that have accumulated in the compiler.
This PR introduces a new lint `proc_macro_back_compat`, which results in
a future-incompat-report entry being generated. All proc-macro
back-compat warnings will be grouped under this lint. Note that this
lint will never actually become a hard error - instead, we will remove
the special cases for various macros, which will cause older versions of
those crates to emit some other error.
I've added code to fire this lint for the `time-macros-impl` case. This
is the easiest case out of all of our current back-compat hacks - the
crate was renamed to `time-macros`, so seeing a filename with
`time-macros-impl` guarantees that an older version of the parent `time`
crate is in use.
When Cargo's future-incompat-report feature gets stabilized, affected
users will start to see future-incompat warnings when they build their
crates.
Stabilize `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint
This makes it possible to override the level of the `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn`, as proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71668#issuecomment-729770896.
Tracking issue: #71668
r? ```@nikomatsakis``` cc ```@SimonSapin``` ```@RalfJung```
# Stabilization report
This is a stabilization report for `#![feature(unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn)]`.
## Summary
Currently, the body of unsafe functions is an unsafe block, i.e. you can perform unsafe operations inside.
The `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint, stabilized here, can be used to change this behavior, so performing unsafe operations in unsafe functions requires an unsafe block.
For now, the lint is allow-by-default, which means that this PR does not change anything without overriding the lint level.
For more information, see [RFC 2585](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2585-unsafe-block-in-unsafe-fn.md)
### Example
```rust
// An `unsafe fn` for demonstration purposes.
// Calling this is an unsafe operation.
unsafe fn unsf() {}
// #[allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)] by default,
// the behavior of `unsafe fn` is unchanged
unsafe fn allowed() {
// Here, no `unsafe` block is needed to
// perform unsafe operations...
unsf();
// ...and any `unsafe` block is considered
// unused and is warned on by the compiler.
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[warn(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn warned() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause the compiler to emit a warning.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn denied() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause a compilation error.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
```
- Move MISSING_CRATE_LEVEL_DOCS to rustdoc directly
- Update documentation
This also takes the opportunity to make the `no-crate-level-doc-lint`
test more specific.
- Rename `broken_intra_doc_links` to `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links`
- Ensure that the old lint names still work and give deprecation errors
- Register lints even when running doctests
Otherwise, all `rustdoc::` lints would be ignored.
- Register all existing lints as removed
This unfortunately doesn't work with `register_renamed` because tool
lints have not yet been registered when rustc is running. For similar
reasons, `check_backwards_compat` doesn't work either. Call
`register_removed` directly instead.
- Fix fallout
+ Rustdoc lints for compiler/
+ Rustdoc lints for library/
Note that this does *not* suggest `rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links` for
`rustdoc::intra_doc_link_resolution_failure`, since there was no time
when the latter was valid.
This allows a build system to indicate a location in its own dependency
specification files (eg Cargo's `Cargo.toml`) which can be reported
along side any unused crate dependency.
This supports several types of location:
- 'json' - provide some json-structured data, which is included in the json diagnostics
in a `tool_metadata` field
- 'raw' - emit the provided string into the output. This also appears as a json string in
`tool_metadata`.
If no `--extern-location` is explicitly provided then a default json entry of the form
`"tool_metadata":{"name":<cratename>,"path":<cratepath>}` is emitted.
introduce future-compatibility warning for forbidden lint groups
We used to ignore `forbid(group)` scenarios completely. This changed in #78864, but that led to a number of regressions (#80988, #81218).
This PR introduces a future compatibility warning for the case where a group is forbidden but then an individual lint within that group is allowed. We now issue a FCW when we see the "allow", but permit it to take effect.
r? ``@Mark-Simulacrum``
We used to ignore `forbid(group)` scenarios completely. This changed
in #78864, but that led to a number of regressions (#80988, #81218).
This PR introduces a future compatibility warning for the case where
a group is forbidden but then an individual lint within that group
is allowed. We now issue a FCW when we see the "allow", but permit
it to take effect.
cc #79813
This PR adds an allow-by-default future-compatibility lint
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS`. It fires when a trailing semicolon in a
macro body is ignored due to the macro being used in expression
position:
```rust
macro_rules! foo {
() => {
true; // WARN
}
}
fn main() {
let val = match true {
true => false,
_ => foo!()
};
}
```
The lint takes its level from the macro call site, and
can be allowed for a particular macro by adding
`#[allow(semicolon_in_expressions_from_macros)]`.
The lint is set to warn for all internal rustc crates (when being built
by a stage1 compiler). After the next beta bump, we can enable
the lint for the bootstrap compiler as well.
It's not an internal lint:
- It's not in the rustc::internal lint group
- It's on unconditionally, because it actually lints `staged_api`, not
the compiler
This fixes a bug where `#[deny(rustc::internal)]` would warn that
`rustc::internal` was an unknown lint.
Rename `overlapping_patterns` lint
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65477. I also tweaked a few things along the way.
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` modify labels: +A-exhaustiveness-checking
Recognize `private_intra_doc_links` as a lint
Previously, trying to allow this would give another error!
```
warning: unknown lint: `private_intra_doc_links`
--> private.rs:1:10
|
1 | #![allow(private_intra_doc_links)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `broken_intra_doc_links`
|
= note: `#[warn(unknown_lints)]` on by default
warning: public documentation for `DocMe` links to private item `DontDocMe`
--> private.rs:2:11
|
2 | /// docs [DontDocMe]
| ^^^^^^^^^ this item is private
|
= note: `#[warn(private_intra_doc_links)]` on by default
= note: this link will resolve properly if you pass `--document-private-items`
```
Fixes the issue found in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77249#issuecomment-712339227.
r? ````````@Manishearth````````
Does anyone know why this additional step is necessary? It seems weird this has to be declared in 3 different places.
Previously, trying to allow this would give another error!
```
warning: unknown lint: `private_intra_doc_links`
--> private.rs:1:10
|
1 | #![allow(private_intra_doc_links)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ help: did you mean: `broken_intra_doc_links`
|
= note: `#[warn(unknown_lints)]` on by default
warning: public documentation for `DocMe` links to private item `DontDocMe`
--> private.rs:2:11
|
2 | /// docs [DontDocMe]
| ^^^^^^^^^ this item is private
|
= note: `#[warn(private_intra_doc_links)]` on by default
= note: this link will resolve properly if you pass `--document-private-items`
```
