Make errors for unnecessary visibility qualifiers consistent
This PR refactors away `syntax::parse::parser::ParsePub` so that unnecessary visibility qualifiers on variant fields are reported not by the parser but by `privacy::SanePrivacyVisitor` (thanks to @petrochenkov's drive-by improvements in #31919).
r? @nikomatsakis
tests: add test for empty <>
Rust allows to specify an empty list of type and lifetime parameters, but there are no tests for it:
```
user@UNIT-326 [12:53:45] [~/projects/rust] [diamonds-and-rust]
-> % grep "<>" -R src/test
src/test/compile-fail/generic-type-params-name-repr.rs: // And don't print <> at all when there's just defaults.
src/test/debuginfo/issue22656.rs:// when trying to handle a Vec<> or anything else that contains zero-sized
```
So let's add them! Besides it's such a wonderful opportunity to put a reference to Judas Priest band into the branch name ;)
mk: Distribute fewer TARGET_CRATES
Right now everything in TARGET_CRATES is built by default for all non-fulldeps
tests and is distributed by default for all target standard library packages.
Currenly this includes a number of unstable crates which are rarely used such as
`graphviz` and `rbml`>
This commit trims down the set of `TARGET_CRATES`, moves a number of tests to
`*-fulldeps` as a result, and trims down the dependencies of libtest so we can
distribute fewer crates in the `rust-std` packages.
Add error file for E0152
It completes #31818.
However it is not complete yet:
* test will need to be updated
* the file name displayed is a bit too unclear.
I'm not sure yet what's the "correct" file name to display. If anyone has an idea on this, it'd be very appreciated.
r? @brson
implement the `?` operator
The `?` postfix operator is sugar equivalent to the try! macro, but is more amenable to chaining:
`File::open("foo")?.metadata()?.is_dir()`.
`?` is accepted on any *expression* that can return a `Result`, e.g. `x()?`, `y!()?`, `{z}?`,
`(w)?`, etc. And binds more tightly than unary operators, e.g. `!x?` is parsed as `!(x?)`.
cc #31436
---
cc @aturon @eddyb
Right now everything in TARGET_CRATES is built by default for all non-fulldeps
tests and is distributed by default for all target standard library packages.
Currenly this includes a number of unstable crates which are rarely used such as
`graphviz` and `rbml`>
This commit trims down the set of `TARGET_CRATES`, moves a number of tests to
`*-fulldeps` as a result, and trims down the dependencies of libtest so we can
distribute fewer crates in the `rust-std` packages.
The `?` postfix operator is sugar equivalent to the try! macro, but is more amenable to chaining:
`File::open("foo")?.metadata()?.is_dir()`.
`?` is accepted on any *expression* that can return a `Result`, e.g. `x()?`, `y!()?`, `{z}?`,
`(w)?`, etc. And binds more tightly than unary operators, e.g. `!x?` is parsed as `!(x?)`.
cc #31436
Do not trigger unused_assignments for overloaded AssignOps
If `v` were a type with some kind of indirection, so that `v += 1` would
have an effect even if `v` were not used anymore, the unused_assignments lint
would mark a false positive.
This exempts overloaded (non-primitive) assign ops from being treated as
assignments (they are method calls).
The previous compile-fail tests that ensure x += 1 can trigger for
primitive types continue to pass. Added a representative test for the
"view" indirection.
Fixes#31895
This PR implements [RFC 1192](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1192-inclusive-ranges.md), which is triple-dot syntax for inclusive range expressions. The new stuff is behind two feature gates (one for the syntax and one for the std::ops types). This replaces the deprecated functionality in std::iter. Along the way I simplified the desugaring for all ranges.
This is my first contribution to rust which changes more than one character outside of a test or comment, so please review carefully! Some of the individual commit messages have more of my notes. Also thanks for putting up with my dumb questions in #rust-internals.
- For implementing `std::ops::RangeInclusive`, I took @Stebalien's suggestion from https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1192#issuecomment-137864421. It seemed to me to make the implementation easier and increase type safety. If that stands, the RFC should be amended to avoid confusion.
- I also kind of like @glaebhoerl's [idea](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1254#issuecomment-147815299), which is unified inclusive/exclusive range syntax something like `x>..=y`. We can experiment with this while everything is behind a feature gate.
- There are a couple of FIXMEs left (see the last commit). I didn't know what to do about `RangeArgument` and I haven't added `Index` impls yet. Those should be discussed/finished before merging.
cc @Gankro since you [complained](https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/3xkfro/what_happened_to_inclusive_ranges/cy5j0yq)
cc #27777#30877rust-lang/rust#1192rust-lang/rfcs#1254
relevant to #28237 (tracking issue)
This PR allows using methods from traits that are visible but are defined in an inaccessible module (fixes#18241). For example,
```rust
mod foo {
pub use foo::bar::Tr;
mod bar { // This module is inaccessible from `g`
pub trait Tr { fn f(&self) {} }
}
}
fn g<T: foo::Tr>(t: T) {
t.f(); // Currently, this is a privacy error even though `foo::Tr` is visible
}
```
After this PR, it will continue to be a privacy error to use a method from a trait that is not visible. This can happen when a public trait inherits from a private trait (in violation of the `public_in_private` lint) -- see @petrochenkov's example in #28504.
r? @nikomatsakis
Now that 767d85061a is upstream, the relevant deadlocking issue which prompted our downgrade has been resolved. As a result, there's no known issue to *not* upgrade! This also re-enables jemalloc for the pc-windows-gnu target as known issues with that have also been fixed.
Closes#31030
If `v` were a type with some kind of indirection, so that `v += 1` would
have an effect even if `v` were not used anymore, the unused_assignments lint
would mark a false positive.
This exempts overloaded (non-primitive) assign ops from being treated as
assignments (they are method calls).
The previous compile-fail tests that ensure x += 1 can trigger for
primitive types continue to pass. Added a representative test for the
"view" indirection.
Right now there's just a smattering of `// ignore-foo` platforms which is ever
expanding as new ones are added. Instead switch to only running these tests on
Linux/OSX and then use a guaranteed-to-work but not-as-well-tested alternative
on other platforms.
This PR changes the search paths for macro-expanded non-inline modules so that they match ordinary non-inline modules (fixes#31624). This is a [breaking-change].
Right now, the search paths for a macro-expanded non-inline module are computed as if the module were declared in the top level of the file in which the macro was defined.
For example, consider `./foo/mod.rs`:
```rust
mod inconsequential { // moving the macro outside this module wouldn't change anything
macro_rules! mod_decl {
($i:ident) => { mod $i; }
}
}
```
and `./lib.rs`:
```rust
mod foo;
mod bar {
mod_decl!(baz);
//^ Now, rustc expects `./foo/baz.rs` (or `./foo/baz/mod.rs`)
//| After this PR, rustc will expect `./bar/baz.rs` (or `./bar/baz/mod.rs`)
}
```
r? @alexcrichton
This PR extends compiletest to support **test revisions** and with a preliminary **incremental testing harness**. run-pass, compile-fail, and run-fail tests may be tagged with
```
// revisions: a b c d
```
This will cause the test to be re-run four times with `--cfg {a,b,c,d}` in turn. This means you can write very closely related things using `cfg`. You can also configure the headers/expected-errors by writing `//[foo] header: value` or `//[foo]~ ERROR bar`, where `foo` is the name of your revision. See the changes to `coherence-cow.rs` as a proof of concept.
The main point of this work is to support the incremental testing harness. This PR contains an initial, unused version. The code that uses it will land later. The incremental testing harness compiles each revision in turn, and requires that the revisions have particular names (e.g., `rpass2`, `cfail3`), which tell it whether a particular revision is expected to compile or not.
Two questions:
- Is there compiletest documentation anywhere I can update?
- Should I hold off on landing the incremental testing harness until I have the code to exercise it? (That will come in a separate PR, still fixing a few details)
r? @alexcrichton
cc @rust-lang/compiler <-- new testing capabilities
This PR privacy checks paths as they are resolved instead of in `librustc_privacy` (fixes#12334 and fixes#31779). This removes the need for the `LastPrivate` system introduced in PR #9735, the limitations of which cause #31779.
This PR also reports privacy violations in paths to intra- and inter-crate items the same way -- it always reports the first inaccessible segment of the path.
Since it fixes#31779, this is a [breaking-change]. For example, the following code would break:
```rust
mod foo {
pub use foo::bar::S;
mod bar { // `bar` should be private to `foo`
pub struct S;
}
}
impl foo::S {
fn f() {}
}
fn main() {
foo::bar::S::f(); // This is now a privacy error
}
```
r? @alexcrichton
