Currently, we only point at the span of the macro argument. When the
macro call is itself generated by another macro, this can make it
difficult or impossible to determine which macro is responsible for
producing the error.
As described in issue #85708, we currently do not properly decode
`SyntaxContext::root()` and `ExpnId::root()` from foreign crates. As a
result, when we decode a span from a foreign crate with
`SyntaxContext::root()`, we end up up considering it to have the edition
of the *current* crate, instead of the foreign crate where it was
originally created.
A full fix for this issue will be a fairly significant undertaking.
Fortunately, it's possible to implement a partial fix, which gives us
the correct edition-dependent behavior for `:pat` matchers when the
macro is loaded from another crate. Since we have the edition of the
macro's defining crate available, we can 'recover' from seeing a
`SyntaxContext::root()` and use the edition of the macro's defining
crate.
Any solution to issue #85708 must reproduce the behavior of this
targeted fix - properly preserving a foreign `SyntaxContext::root()`
means (among other things) preserving its edition, which by definition
is the edition of the foreign crate itself. Therefore, this fix moves us
closer to the correct overall solution, and does not expose any new
incorrect behavior to macros.
In addition to making the output look nicer for all crates, this also
aligns the pretty-printing output with what the `rental` crate expects.
This will allow us to eventually disable a backwards-compat hack in a
follow-up PR.
expand: Do not ICE when a legacy AST-based macro attribute produces and empty expression
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80251
The reported error is the same as for `let _ = #[cfg(FALSE)] EXPR;`
This is step 2 towards fixing #77548.
In the codegen and codegen-units test suites, the `//` comment markers
were kept in order not to affect any source locations. This is because
these tests cannot be automatically `--bless`ed.
format macro argument parsing fix
When the character next to `{}` is "shifted" (when mapping a byte index
in the format string to span) we should avoid shifting the span end
index, so first map the index of `}` to span, then bump the span,
instead of first mapping the next byte index to a span (which causes
bumping the end span too much).
Regression test added.
Fixes#83344
---
r? ```@estebank```
When the character next to `{}` is "shifted" (when mapping a byte index
in the format string to span) we should avoid shifting the span end
index, so first map the index of `}` to span, then bump the span,
instead of first mapping the next byte index to a span (which causes
bumping the end span too much).
Regression test added.
Fixes#83344
Some newcomers are confused by the behavior of tail expressions,
interpreting that "leaving out the `;` makes it the return value".
To help them go in the right direction, suggest using `return` instead
when applicable.
It can be useful to do some computation in `assert!` format arguments, in order to get better error messages. For example:
```rust
assert!(
some_condition,
"The state is invalid. Details: {}",
expensive_call_to_get_debugging_info(),
);
```
It seems like `assert!` only evaluates the format arguments if the assertion fails, which is useful but doesn't appear to be documented anywhere. This PR documents the behavior and adds some tests.
