Move injection of attributes from command line to `libsyntax_ext`
Just a tiny bit of code generation that wasn't moved into `libsyntax_ext` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/62771.
Use hygiene for AST passes
AST passes are now able to have resolve consider their expansions as if they were opaque macros defined either in some module in the current crate, or a fake empty module with `#[no_implicit_prelude]`.
* Add an ExpnKind for AST passes.
* Remove gensyms in AST passes.
* Remove gensyms in`#[test]`, `#[bench]` and `#[test_case]`.
* Allow opaque macros to define tests.
* Move tests for unit tests to their own directory.
* Remove `Ident::{gensym, is_gensymed}` - `Ident::gensym_if_underscore` still exists.
cc #60869, #61019
r? @petrochenkov
or-patterns: Uniformly use `PatKind::Or` in AST & Fix/Cleanup resolve
Following up on work in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/63693 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61708, in this PR we:
- Uniformly use `PatKind::Or(...)` in AST:
- Change `ast::Arm.pats: Vec<P<Pat>>` => `ast::Arm.pat: P<Pat>`
- Change `ast::ExprKind::Let.0: Vec<P<Pat>>` => `ast::ExprKind::Let.0: P<Pat>`
- Adjust `librustc_resolve/late.rs` to correctly handle or-patterns at any level of nesting as a result.
In particular, the already-bound check which rejects e.g. `let (a, a);` now accounts for or-patterns. The consistency checking (ensures no missing bindings and binding mode consistency) also now accounts for or-patterns. In the process, a bug was found in the current compiler which allowed:
```rust
enum E<T> { A(T, T), B(T) }
use E::*;
fn foo() {
match A(0, 1) {
B(mut a) | A(mut a, mut a) => {}
}
}
```
The new algorithms took a few iterations to get right. I tried several clever schemes but ultimately a version based on a stack of hashsets and recording product/sum contexts was chosen since it is more clearly correct.
- Clean up `librustc_resolve/late.rs` by, among other things, using a new `with_rib` function to better ensure stack dicipline.
- Do not push the change in AST to HIR for now to avoid doing too much in this PR. To cope with this, we introduce a temporary hack in `rustc::hir::lowering` (clearly marked in the diff).
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54883
cc @dlrobertson @matthewjasper
r? @petrochenkov
They are only used by rustc_lexer, and are not needed elsewhere.
So we move the relevant definitions into rustc_lexer (while the actual
unicode data comes from the unicode-xid crate) and make the rest of
the compiler use it.
Replace them with equivalents of `Span::{def_site,call_site}` from proc macro API.
The new API is much less error prone and doesn't rely on macros having default transparency.
Make sure that all file loading happens via SourceMap
That way, callers don't need to repeat "let's add this to sm manually
for tracking dependencies" trick.
It should make it easier to switch to using `FileLoader` for binary
files in the future as well
cc #62948
r? @petrochenkov
That way, callers don't need to repeat "let's add this to sm manually
for tracking dependencies" trick.
It should make it easier to switch to using `FileLoader` for binary
files in the future as well
expand: Unimplement `MutVisitor` on `MacroExpander`
Each call to `fully_expand_fragment` is something unique, interesting, and requiring attention.
It represents a "root" of expansion and its use means that something unusual is happening, like eager expansion or expansion performed outside of the primary expansion pass.
So, it shouldn't hide under a generic visitor call.
Also, from all the implemented visitor methods only two were actually used.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/63468#discussion_r313504119
Each call to `fully_expand_fragment` is something unique, interesting, and requiring attention.
It represents a "root" of expansion and its use means that something unusual is happening, like eager expansion or expansion performed outside of the primary expansion pass.
So, it shouldn't be hide under a generic visitor call.
Also, from all the implemented visitor methods only two were actually used.
