Before this two macros with same name would be indistinguishable inside a
`FileName`. This caused a bug in incremental compilation (see #53097) since
two different macros would map out to the same `StableFilemapId`.
Fixes#53097.
By introducing a new map that tracks the errors reported and the
`Place`s that spawned those errors against the move out that the error
was referring to, we are able to silence duplicate errors by emitting
only the error which corresponds to the most specific `Place` (that which
other `Place`s which reported errors are prefixes of).
This generally is an improvement, however there is a case -
`liveness-move-in-while` - where the output regresses.
Issue 54246
I added the option of providing a help message for deprecated features, that takes precedence over the default `help: remove this attribute` message, along with messages for the features that mention replacements in the reason for deprecation.
Fixes#54246.
Regression test for rust-lang/rust#53675.
(Includes a couple variations on the theme. I confirmed that the ones
in `in_expression_position` and `what_if_we_use_panic_directly_in_expr`
both failed back on "rustc 1.30.0-nightly (0f063aef6 2018-09-03)".)
Fix#53675
It is worth pointing out that the reason that so few diagnostics are
effected is because of the filter I put in where it only goes down the
new path if the borrowed place is *not* a prefix of the dropped place.
(Without that filter, a *lot* of the tests would need this change, and
it would probably be a net loss for the UX, since you'd see it even in
cases like borrows of generic types where there is no explicit mention
of `Drop`.)
use structured suggestion for "missing mut" label
Fixes#54133 for both NLL and non-NLL.
r? @estebank
I'm not super happy with the existing wording here, since it's now a suggestion. I wonder if the message would work better as something like "help: make binding mutable: `mut foo`"?
Also, are the `HELP` and `SUGGESTION` comments necessary?
(Includes a couple variations on the theme. I confirmed that the ones
in `in_expression_position` and `what_if_we_use_panic_directly_in_expr`
both failed back on "rustc 1.30.0-nightly (0f063aef6 2018-09-03)".)
resolve: Introduce two sub-namespaces in macro namespace
Two sub-namespaces are introduced in the macro namespace - one for bang macros and one for attribute-like macros (attributes, derives).
"Sub-namespace" means this is not a newly introduced full namespace, the single macro namespace is still in place.
I.e. you still can't define/import two macros with the same name in a single module, `use` imports still import only one name in macro namespace (from any sub-namespace) and not possibly two.
However, when we are searching for a name used in a `!` macro call context (`my_macro!()`) we skip attribute names in scope, and when we are searching for a name used in attribute context (`#[my_macro]`/`#[derive(my_macro)]`) we are skipping bang macro names in scope.
In other words, bang macros cannot shadow attribute macros and vice versa.
For a non-macro analogy, we could e.g. skip non-traits when searching for `MyTrait` in `impl MyTrait for Type { ... }`.
However we do not do it in non-macro namespaces because we don't have practical issues with e.g. non-traits shadowing traits with the same name, but with macros we do, especially after macro modularization.
For `#[test]` and `#[bench]` we have a hack in the compiler right now preventing their shadowing by `macro_rules! test` and similar things. This hack was introduced after making `#[test]`/`#[bench]` built-in macros instead of built-in attributes (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53410), something that needed to be done from the start since they are "active" attributes transforming their inputs.
Now they are passed through normal name resolution and can be shadowed, but that's a breaking change, so we have a special hack basically applying this PR for `#[test]` and `#[bench]` only.
Soon all potentially built-in attributes will be passed through normal name resolution (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53913) and that uncovers even more cases where the strict "macro namespace is a single namespace" rule needs to be broken.
For example, with strict rules, built-in macro `cfg!(...)` would shadow built-in attribute `#[cfg]` (they are different things), standard library macro `thread_local!(...)` would shadow built-in attribute `#[thread_local]` - both of these cases are covered by special hacks in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53913 as well.
Crater run uncovered more cases of attributes being shadowed by user-defined macros (`warn`, `doc`, `main`, even `deprecated`), we cannot add exceptions in the compiler for all of them.
Regressions with user-defined attributes like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53583 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53898 also appeared after enabling macro modularization.
People are also usually confused (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53205#issuecomment-411552763, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53583#issuecomment-415447800) when they see conflicts between attributes and non-attribute macros for the first time.
So my proposed solution is to solve this issue by introducing two sub-namespaces and thus skipping resolutions of the wrong kind and preventing more error-causing cases of shadowing.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53583
rustc_resolve: don't treat uniform_paths canaries as ambiguities unless they resolve to distinct Def's.
In particular, this allows this pattern that @cramertj mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53130#issuecomment-420848814:
```rust
use log::{debug, log};
fn main() {
use log::{debug, log};
debug!(...);
}
```
The canaries for the inner `use log::...;`, *in the macro namespace*, see the `log` macro imported at the module scope, and the (same) `log` macro, imported in the block scope inside `main`.
Previously, these two possible (macro namspace) `log` resolutions would be considered ambiguous (from a forwards-compat standpoint, where we might make imports aware of block scopes).
With this PR, such a case is allowed *if and only if* all the possible resolutions refer to the same definition (more specifically, because the *same* `log` macro is being imported twice).
This condition subsumes previous (weaker) checks like #54005 and the second commit of #54011.
Only the last commit is the main change, the other two are cleanups.
r? @petrochenkov cc @Centril @joshtriplett
[NLL] Suggest let binding
Closes#49821
Also adds an alternative to `explain_why_borrow_contains_point` that allows changing error messages based on the reason that will be given. This will also be useful for #51026, #51169 and maybe further changes to does not live long enough messages.
