A scheme for more macro-matcher friendly pre-expansion gating
Pre-expansion gating will now avoid gating macro matchers that did not result in `Success(...)`. That is, the following is now OK despite `box 42` being a valid `expr` and that form being pre-expansion gated:
```rust
macro_rules! m {
($e:expr) => { 0 }; // This fails on the input below due to `, foo`.
(box $e:expr, foo) => { 1 }; // Successful matcher, we should get `2`.
}
fn main() {
assert_eq!(1, m!(box 42, foo));
}
```
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65846.
r? @petrochenkov
cc @Mark-Simulacrum
syntax: Avoid span arithmetic for delimiter tokens
The +/-1 logic is from the time where the whole group had a single span and the delimiter spans had to be calculated from it.
Now the delimiters have their own spans which are constructed by lexer or proc macro API and can be used directly.
If those spans are not perfect, then it should be fixed by tweaking the corresponding lexer logic rather than by trying to add or substract `1` from the span boundaries.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62524
r? @estebank
Reduce amount of errors given unclosed delimiter
When in a file with a non-terminated item, catch the error and consume
the block instead of trying to recover it on a more granular way in order to
reduce the amount of unrelated errors that would be fixed after adding
the missing closing brace. Also point out the possible location of the
missing closing brace.
Fix#63690.
Partially revert the early feature-gatings added in #65742.
The intent here is to address #65860 ASAP (in time for beta, ideally), while leaving as much of #65742 around as possible, to make it easier to re-enable later.
Therefore, I've only kept the parts of the revert that re-add the old (i.e. non-early) feature-gating checks that were removed in #65742, and the test reverts.
I've disabled the new early feature-gating checks from #65742 entirely for now, but it would be easy to put them behind a `-Z` flag, or turn them into warnings, which would allow us to keep tests for both the early and late versions of the checks - assuming that's desirable.
cc @nikomatsakis @Mark-Simulacrum @Centril
When in a file with a non-terminated item, catch the error and consume
the block instead of trying to recover it more granularly in order to
reduce the amount of unrelated errors that would be fixed after adding
the missing closing brace. Also point out the possible location of the
missing closing brace.
Add new EFIAPI ABI
Fixes#54527
Adds a new ABI, "efiapi", which reflects the calling convention as specified by [the current spec UEFI spec](https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI%20Spec%202_7_A%20Sept%206.pdf#G6.999903). When compiling for x86_64, we should select the `win64` ABI, while on all other architectures (Itanium, x86, ARM and ARM64 and RISC-V), we should select the `C` ABI.
Currently, this is done by just turning it into the C ABI everywhere except on x86_64, where it's turned into the win64 ABI. Should we prevent this ABI from being used on unsupported architectures, and if so, how would this be done?
Use heuristics to recover parsing of missing `;`
- Detect `,` and `:` typos where `;` was intended.
- When the next token could have been the start of a new statement,
detect a missing semicolon.
Fix#48160, fix#44767 (after adding note about statements).
Point at the span for the definition of ADTs internal to the current
crate.
Look at the leading char of the ident to determine whether we're
expecting a likely fn or any of a fn, a tuple struct or a tuple variant.
Turn fn `add_typo_suggestion` into a `Resolver` method.
Increase spacing for suggestions in diagnostics
Make the spacing between the code snippet and verbose structured
suggestions consistent with note and help messages.
r? @Centril
Adds a new ABI for the EFIAPI calls. This ABI should reflect the latest
version of the UEFI specification at the time of commit (UEFI spec 2.8,
URL below). The specification says that for x86_64, we should follow the
win64 ABI, while on all other supported platforms (ia32, itanium, arm,
arm64 and risc-v), we should follow the C ABI.
To simplify the implementation, we will simply follow the C ABI on all
platforms except x86_64, even those technically unsupported by the UEFI
specification.
https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/UEFI_Spec_2_8_final.pdf
Add support for `const unsafe? extern fn`
This works just as you might expect - an `const extern fn` is a `const fn` that is callable from foreign code.
Currently, panicking is not allowed in `const`s. When https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2345 (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51999) is stabilized, then panicking in an `const extern fn` will produce a compile-time error when invoked at compile time, and an abort when invoked at runtime.
Since this is extending the language (we're allowing the `const` keyword in a new context), I believe that this will need an FCP. However, it's a very minor change, so I didn't think that filing an RFC was necessary.
This will allow libc (and other FFI crates) to make many functions `const`, without having to give up on making them `extern` as well.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/64926.
This commit improves the suggestions provided when function parameters
do not have types:
- A new suggestion is added for arbitrary self types, which suggests
adding `self: ` before the type.
- Existing suggestions are now provided when a `<` is found where a `:`
was expected (previously only `,` and `)` or trait items), this gives
suggestions in the case where the unnamed parameter type is generic
in a free function.
- The suggestion that a type name be provided (e.g. `fn foo(HashMap<u32>)`
-> `fn foo(HashMap: TypeName<u32>)`) will no longer occur when a `<` was
found instead of `:`.
- The ident will not be used for recovery when a `<` was found instead
of `:`.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
This works just as you might expect - an 'extern const fn' is a 'const
fn' that is callable from foreign code.
Currently, panicking is not allowed in consts. When RFC 2345 is
stabilized, then panicking in an 'extern const fn' will produce a
compile-time error when invoked at compile time, and an abort when
invoked at runtime.
Since this is extending the language (we're allowing the `const` keyword
in a new context), I believe that this will need an FCP. However, it's a
very minor change, so I didn't think that filing an RFC was necessary.
This will allow libc (and other FFI crates) to make many functions
`const`, without having to give up on making them `extern` as well.
