`#[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.)
Turn compatibility lint `match_of_unit_variant_via_paren_dotdot` into a hard error
The lint was introduced 10 months ago and made deny-by-default 7 months ago.
In case someone is still using it, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/36868 contains a stable replacement.
r? @nikomatsakis
Improve error message and snippet for "did you mean `x`"
- Fixes#36164
- Part of #35233
Based on the standalone example https://is.gd/8STXMd posted by @nikomatsakis and using the third formatting option mentioned in #36164 and agreed by @jonathandturner.
Note however this does not address the question of [how to handle an empty or unknown suggestion](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/36164#issuecomment-244460024). @nikomatsakis any suggestions on how best to address that part?
Enforce the shadowing restrictions from RFC 1560 for today's macros
This PR enforces a weakened version of the shadowing restrictions from RFC 1560. More specifically,
- If a macro expansion contains a `macro_rules!` macro definition that is used outside of the expansion, the defined macro may not shadow an existing macro.
- If a macro expansion contains a `#[macro_use] extern crate` macro import that is used outside of the expansion, the imported macro may not shadow an existing macro.
This is a [breaking-change]. For example,
```rust
macro_rules! m { () => {} }
macro_rules! n { () => {
macro_rules! m { () => {} } //< This shadows an existing macro.
m!(); //< This is inside the expansion that generated `m`'s definition, so it is OK.
} }
n!();
m!(); //< This use of `m` is outside the expansion, so it causes the shadowing to be an error.
```
r? @nrc
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
