Split-up stability_index query
This PR aims to move deprecation and stability processing away from the monolithic `stability_index` query, and directly implement `lookup_{deprecation,stability,body_stability,const_stability}` queries.
The basic idea is to:
- move per-attribute sanity checks into `check_attr.rs`;
- move attribute compatibility checks into the `MissingStabilityAnnotations` visitor;
- progressively dismantle the `Annotator` visitor and the `stability_index` query.
The first commit contains functional change, and now warns when `#[automatically_derived]` is applied on a non-trait impl block. The other commits should not change visible behaviour.
Perf in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143845#issuecomment-3066308630 shows small but consistent improvement, except for unused-warnings case. That case being a stress test, I'm leaning towards accepting the regression.
This PR changes `check_attr`, so has a high conflict rate on that file. This should not cause issues for review.
Split up the `unknown_or_malformed_diagnostic_attributes` lint
This splits up the lint into the following lint group:
- `unknown_diagnostic_attributes` - triggers if the attribute is unknown to the current compiler
- `misplaced_diagnostic_attributes` - triggers if the attribute exists but it is not placed on the item kind it's meant for
- `malformed_diagnostic_attributes` - triggers if the attribute's syntax or options are invalid
- `malformed_diagnostic_format_literals` - triggers if the format string literal is invalid, for example if it has unpaired curly braces or invalid parameters
- this pr doesn't create it, but future lints for things like deprecations can also go here.
This PR does not start emitting lints in places that previously did not.
## Motivation
I want to have finer control over what `unknown_or_malformed_diagnostic_attributes` does
I have a project with fairly low msrv that is/will have a lower msrv than future diagnostic attributes. So lints will be emitted when I or others compile it on a lower msrv.
At this time, there are two options to silence these lints:
- `#[allow(unknown_or_malformed_diagnostic_attributes)]` - this risks diagnostic regressions if I (or others) mess up using the attribute, or if the attribute's syntax ever changes.
- write a build script to detect the compiler version and emit cfgs, and then conditionally enable the attribute:
```rust
#[cfg_attr(rust_version_99, diagnostic::new_attr_in_rust_99(thing = ..))]`
struct Foo;
```
or conditionally `allow` the lint:
```rust
// lib.rs
#![cfg_attr(not(current_rust), allow(unknown_or_malformed_diagnostic_attributes))]
```
I like to avoid using build scripts if I can, so the following works much better for me. That is what this PR will let me do in the future:
```rust
#[allow(unknown_diagnostic_attribute, reason = "attribute came out in rust 1.99 but msrv is 1.70")]
#[diagnostic::new_attr_in_rust_99(thing = ..)]`
struct Foo;
Port several linking (linkage?) related attributes the new attribute system
This ports:
- `#[export_stable]`
- `#[ffi_const]`
- `#[ffi_pure]`
- `#[rustc_std_internal_symbol]`
Part of rust-lang/rust#131229
r? ``@oli-obk``
`tests/ui`: A New Order [25/N]
> [!NOTE]
>
> Intermediate commits are intended to help review, but will be squashed prior to merge.
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? `@tgross35`
Rewrite `macro_rules!` parser to not use the MBE engine itself
The `macro_rules!` parser was written to match the series of rules using the macros-by-example (MBE) engine and a hand-written equivalent of the left-hand side of a MBE macro. This was complex to read, difficult to extend, and produced confusing error messages. Because it was using the MBE engine, any parse failure would be reported as if some macro was being applied to the `macro_rules!` invocation itself; for instance, errors would talk about "macro invocation", "macro arguments", and "macro call", when they were actually about the macro *definition*.
And in practice, the `macro_rules!` parser only used the MBE engine to extract the left-hand side and right-hand side of each rule as a token tree, and then parsed the rest using a separate parser.
Rewrite it to parse the series of rules using a simple loop, instead. This makes it more extensible in the future, and improves error messages. For instance, omitting a semicolon between rules will result in "expected `;`" and "unexpected token", rather than the confusing "no rules expected this token in macro call".
This work was greatly aided by pair programming with Vincenzo Palazzo (`@vincenzopalazzo)` and Eric Holk (`@eholk).`
For review, I recommend reading the two commits separately.
`tests/ui`: A New Order [13/N]
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? ```@jieyouxu```
`tests/ui`: A New Order [12/N]
Some `tests/ui/` housekeeping, to trim down number of tests directly under `tests/ui/`. Part of rust-lang/rust#133895.
r? `@jieyouxu`
The `macro_rules!` parser was written to match the series of rules using
the macros-by-example (MBE) engine and a hand-written equivalent of the
left-hand side of a MBE macro. This was complex to read, difficult to
extend, and produced confusing error messages. Because it was using the
MBE engine, any parse failure would be reported as if some macro was
being applied to the `macro_rules!` invocation itself; for instance,
errors would talk about "macro invocation", "macro arguments", and
"macro call", when they were actually about the macro *definition*.
And in practice, the `macro_rules!` parser only used the MBE engine to
extract the left-hand side and right-hand side of each rule as a token
tree, and then parsed the rest using a separate parser.
Rewrite it to parse the series of rules using a simple loop, instead.
This makes it more extensible in the future, and improves error
messages. For instance, omitting a semicolon between rules will result
in "expected `;`" and "unexpected token", rather than the confusing "no
rules expected this token in macro call".
This work was greatly aided by pair programming with Vincenzo Palazzo
and Eric Holk.
