`BinOpToken` is badly named, because it only covers the assignable
binary ops and excludes comparisons and `&&`/`||`. Its use in
`ast::TokenKind` does allow a small amount of code sharing, but it's a
clumsy factoring.
This commit removes `ast::TokenKind::BinOp{,Eq}`, replacing each one
with 10 individual variants. This makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`rustc_lexer::TokenKind`, which has individual variants for all
operators.
Although the number of lines of code increases, the number of chars
decreases due to the frequent use of shorter names like `token::Plus`
instead of `token::BinOp(BinOpToken::Plus)`.
The parser pushes a `TokenType` to `Parser::expected_token_types` on
every call to the various `check`/`eat` methods, and clears it on every
call to `bump`. Some of those `TokenType` values are full tokens that
require cloning and dropping. This is a *lot* of work for something
that is only used in error messages and it accounts for a significant
fraction of parsing execution time.
This commit overhauls `TokenType` so that `Parser::expected_token_types`
can be implemented as a bitset. This requires changing `TokenType` to a
C-style parameterless enum, and adding `TokenTypeSet` which uses a
`u128` for the bits. (The new `TokenType` has 105 variants.)
The new types `ExpTokenPair` and `ExpKeywordPair` are now arguments to
the `check`/`eat` methods. This is for maximum speed. The elements in
the pairs are always statically known; e.g. a
`token::BinOp(token::Star)` is always paired with a `TokenType::Star`.
So we now compute `TokenType`s in advance and pass them in to
`check`/`eat` rather than the current approach of constructing them on
insertion into `expected_token_types`.
Values of these pair types can be produced by the new `exp!` macro,
which is used at every `check`/`eat` call site. The macro is for
convenience, allowing any pair to be generated from a single identifier.
The ident/keyword filtering in `expected_one_of_not_found` is no longer
necessary. It was there to account for some sloppiness in
`TokenKind`/`TokenType` comparisons.
The existing `TokenType` is moved to a new file `token_type.rs`, and all
its new infrastructure is added to that file. There is more boilerplate
code than I would like, but I can't see how to make it shorter.
Overhaul keyword handling
The compiler's list of keywords has some problems.
- It contains several items that aren't keywords.
- The order isn't quite right in a couple of places.
- Some of the names of predicates relating to keywords are confusing.
- rustdoc and rustfmt have their own (incorrect) versions of the keyword list.
- `AllKeywords` is unnecessarily complex.
r? ```@jieyouxu```
`rustc_symbol` is the source of truth for keywords.
rustdoc has its own implicit definition of keywords, via the
`is_doc_keyword`. It (presumably) intends to include all keywords, but
it omits `yeet`.
rustfmt has its own explicit list of Rust keywords. It also (presumably)
intends to include all keywords, but it omits `await`, `builtin`, `gen`,
`macro_rules`, `raw`, `reuse`, `safe`, and `yeet`. Also, it does linear
searches through this list, which is inefficient.
This commit fixes all of the above problems by introducing a new
predicate `is_any_keyword` in rustc and using it in rustdoc and rustfmt.
It documents that it's not the right predicate in most cases.
Because `TokenStreamIter` is a much better name for a `TokenStream`
iterator. Also rename the `TokenStream::trees` method as
`TokenStream::iter`, and some local variables.
As it happens, lookahead values of 0, 1, and 2 all work fine here, due
to the structure of the code. (Values or 3 or greater cause test
failures.) This commit changes the lookahead to zero because that will
facilitate cleanups in subsequent commits.
Add AST support for unsafe binders
I'm splitting up #130514 into pieces. It's impossible for me to keep up with a huge PR like that. I'll land type system support for this next, probably w/o MIR lowering, which will come later.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@BoxyUwU` and `@lcnr` who also may want to look at this, though this PR doesn't do too much yet
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by `mod` expansion.
Fix#97734.
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #122670 (Fix bug where `option_env!` would return `None` when env var is present but not valid Unicode)
- #131095 (Use environment variables instead of command line arguments for merged doctests)
- #131339 (Expand set_ptr_value / with_metadata_of docs)
- #131652 (Move polarity into `PolyTraitRef` rather than storing it on the side)
- #131675 (Update lint message for ABI not supported)
- #131681 (Fix up-to-date checking for run-make tests)
- #131702 (Suppress import errors for traits that couldve applied for method lookup error)
- #131703 (Resolved python deprecation warning in publish_toolstate.py)
- #131710 (Remove `'apostrophes'` from `rustc_parse_format`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add `&pin (mut|const) T` type position sugar
This adds parser support for `&pin mut T` and `&pin const T` references. These are desugared to `Pin<&mut T>` and `Pin<&T>` in the AST lowering phases.
This PR currently includes #130526 since that one is in the commit queue. Only the most recent commits (bd450027eb4a94b814a7dd9c0fa29102e6361149 and following) are new.
Tracking:
- #130494
r? `@compiler-errors`
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
- fix for divergence
- fix error message
- fix another cranelift test
- fix some cranelift things
- don't set the NORETURN option for naked asm
- fix use of naked_asm! in doc comment
- fix use of naked_asm! in run-make test
- use `span_bug` in unreachable branch
