Implement field shorthands in struct literal expressions.
Implements #37340 in a straight-forward way: `Foo { x, y: f() }` parses as `Foo { x: x, y: f() }`.
Because of the added `is_shorthand` to `ast::Field`, this is `[syntax-breaking]` (cc @Manishearth).
* [x] Mark the fields as being a shorthand (the exact same way we do it in patterns), for pretty-printing.
* [x] Gate the shorthand syntax with `#![feature(field_init_shorthand)]`.
* [x] Don't parse numeric field as identifiers.
* [x] Arbitrary field order tests.
Add identifier to unused import warnings
Fix#37376.
For some reason, though, I'm getting warnings with messages like "76:9: 76:16: unused import: `self::g`" instead of "unused import: `self::g`". @pnkfelix Any ideas what might be causing this?
Convert byte literal pattern to byte array patterns when they are both
used together. so matching them is properly handled. I could've done the
conversion eagerly, but that could have caused a bad worst-case for
massive byte-array matches.
Fixes#18027.
Fixes#25051.
Fixes#26510.
check target abi support
This PR checks for each extern function / block whether the ABI / calling convention used is supported by the current target.
This was achieved by adding an `abi_blacklist` field to the target specifications, listing the calling conventions unsupported for that target.
Disallow Unsized Enums
Fixes#16812.
This PR is a potential fix for #16812, an issue which is reported [again](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/36801) and [again](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/36975), with over a dozen duplicates by now.
This PR is mainly meant to promoted discussion about the issue and the correct way to fix it.
This is a [breaking-change] since the error is now reported during wfchecking, so that even the definition of a (potentially) unsized enum will cause an error (whereas it would previously cause an ICE at trans time if the enum was used in an unsized manner).
syntax: Tweak path parsing logic
Associated paths starting with `<<` are parsed in patterns.
Paths like `self::foo::bar` are interpreted as paths and not as `self` arguments in methods (cc @matklad).
Now, I believe, *all* paths are consistently parsed greedily in case of ambiguity.
Detection of `&'a mut self::` requires pretty large (but still fixed) lookahead, so I had to increase the size of parser's lookahead buffer.
Curiously, if `lookahead_distance >= lookahead_buffer_size` was used previously, the parser hung forever, I fixed this as well, now it ICEs.
r? @jseyfried
Fix some pretty printing tests
Many pretty-printing tests are un-ignored.
Some issues in classification of comments (trailing/isolated) and blank line counting are fixed.
Some comments are printed more carefully.
Some minor refactoring in pprust.rs
`no-pretty-expanded` annotations are removed because this is the default now.
`pretty-expanded` annotations are removed from compile-fail tests, they are not tested with pretty-printer.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/23623 in favor of more specific https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/37201 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/37199
r? @nrc
`#[may_dangle]` attribute
`#[may_dangle]` attribute
Second step of #34761. Last big hurdle before we can work in earnest towards Allocator integration (#32838)
Note: I am not clear if this is *also* a syntax-breaking change that needs to be part of a breaking-batch.
Use a distinct error code for "if may be missing an else clause"
Introduce the possibility of assigning distinct error codes to the various origin types of E0308. Start by assigning E0317 for the "IfExpressionWithNoElse" case, and write a long diagnostic specific to this case.
Fixes#36596
This addresses issue pointed out by niko that prior code would break
if the declaration order for generics does not match how they are fed
into the instantiation of the type itself. (Added some tests
exercising this scenario.)
Changed error message E0408 to new format
Followed your text and was able to change the ouput to the new format.
I did not encounter any broken test therefore this is a really small commit.
Thanks for letting me hack on the compiler :)
r? @jonathandturner
macros: clean up scopes of expanded `#[macro_use]` imports
This PR changes the scope of macro-expanded `#[macro_use]` imports to match that of unexpanded `#[macro_use]` imports. For example, this would be allowed:
```rust
example!();
macro_rules! m { () => { #[macro_use(example)] extern crate example_crate; } }
m!();
```
This PR also enforces the full shadowing restrictions from RFC 1560 on `#[macro_use]` imports (currently, we only enforce the weakened restrictions from #36767).
This is a [breaking-change], but I believe it is highly unlikely to cause breakage in practice.
r? @nrc
In particular, as far as I can tell from the error diagnostics, the
former test for E0199 was actually a test for E0198, and there was no
test for E0198.
(I am assuming that one of my previous changes to the `unsafe impl`
checking fixed a latent bug in how these two cases were
differentiated.)
