Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #53371 (Do not emit E0277 on incorrect tuple destructured binding)
- #53829 (Add rustc SHA to released DWARF debuginfo)
- #53950 (Allow for opting out of ThinLTO and clean up LTO related cli flag handling.)
- #53976 (Replace unwrap calls in example by expect)
- #54070 (Add Error::description soft-deprecation to RELEASES)
- #54076 (miri loop detector hashing)
- #54119 (Add some unit tests for find_best_match_for_name)
- #54147 (Add a test that tries to modify static memory at compile-time)
- #54150 (Updated 1.29 release notes with --document-private-items flag)
- #54163 (Update stage 0 to latest beta)
- #54170 (COMPILER_TESTS.md has been moved)
Add some unit tests for find_best_match_for_name
There were only some UI tests that covered this function.
Since there's more diagnostic work going on, I think it makes
sense to have this unit tested.
Stabilization change for mod.rs
This change is in response to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53125.
The patch makes the feature accepted and removes the tests that tested the
non-accepted status of the feature.
stabilize #[used]
closes#40289
RFC for stabilization: rust-lang/rfcs#2386
r? @Centril
Where should this be documented? Currently the documentation is in the unstable book
There were only some UI tests that covered this function.
Since there's more diagnostic work going on, I think it makes
sense to have this unit tested.
Invocation/expansion ID (aka `Mark`) is not really necessary for resolving a macro path.
What is really necessary is its parent module, parent expansion and parent legacy scope.
This is required for validation resolutions of built-in attributes, which don't get their own `Mark`s
resolve: Relax shadowing restrictions on macro-expanded macros
Previously any macro-expanded macros weren't allowed to shadow macros from outer scopes.
Now only "more macro-expanded" macros cannot shadow "less macro-expanded" macros.
See comments to `fn may_appear_after` and added tests for more details and examples.
The functional changes are a21f6f588fc28c97533130ae44a6957b579ab58c and 46dd365ce9ca0a6b8653849b80267763c542842a, other commits are refactorings.
Stabilize edition 2018; also updates Clippy, RLS and Cargo
Supersedes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53999 , https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/53935
Clippy build was failing there because crate_visibility_modifier feature was taken out of edition 2018 and clippy used it.
The clippy update enables the corresponding feature explicitly.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
proc_macro::Group::span_open and span_close
Before this addition, every delimited group like `(`...`)` `[`...`]` `{`...`}` has only a single Span that covers the full source location from opening delimiter to closing delimiter. This makes it impossible for a procedural macro to trigger an error pointing to just the opening or closing delimiter. The Rust compiler does not seem to have the same limitation:
```rust
mod m {
type T =
}
```
```console
error: expected type, found `}`
--> src/main.rs:3:1
|
3 | }
| ^
```
On that same input, a procedural macro would be forced to trigger the error on the last token inside the block, on the entire block, or on the next token after the block, none of which is really what you want for an error like above.
This commit adds `group.span_open()` and `group.span_close()` which access the Span associated with just the opening delimiter and just the closing delimiter of the group. Relevant to Syn as we implement real error messages for when parsing fails in a procedural macro: https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/issues/476.
```diff
impl Group {
fn span(&self) -> Span;
+ fn span_open(&self) -> Span;
+ fn span_close(&self) -> Span;
}
```
Fixes#48187
r? @alexcrichton
This change is in response to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53125.
The patch makes the feature accepted and removes the tests that tested the
non-accepted status of the feature.
stabilize #[panic_handler]
closes#44489
### Update(2018-09-07)
This was proposed for stabilization in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44489#issuecomment-398965881 and its FCP with disposition to merge / accept is nearly over. The summary of what's being stabilized can be found in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44489#issuecomment-416645946
Documentation PRs:
- Reference. https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/reference/pull/362
- Nomicon. https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/nomicon/pull/75
---
`#[panic_implementation]` was implemented recently in #50338. `#[panic_implementation]` is basically the old `panic_fmt` language item but in a less error prone (\*) shape. There are still some issues and questions to sort out around this feature (cf. #44489) but this PR is meant to start a discussion about those issues / questions with the language team.
(\*) `panic_fmt` was not type checked; changes in its function signature caused serious, silent binary size regressions like the one observed in #43054
Some unresolved questions from #44489:
> Should the Display of PanicInfo format the panic information as "panicked at 'reason',
> src/main.rs:27:4", as "'reason', src/main.rs:27:4", or simply as "reason".
The current implementation formats `PanicInfo` as the first alternative, which is how panic messages are formatted by the `std` panic handler. The `Display` implementation is more than a convenience: `PanicInfo.message` is unstable so it's not possible to replicate the `Display` implementation on stable.
> Is this design compatible, or can it be extended to work, with unwinding implementations for
> no-std environments?
I believe @whitequark made more progress with unwinding in no-std since their last comment in #44489. Perhaps they can give us an update?
---
Another unresolved question is where this feature should be documented. The feature currently doesn't have any documentation.
cc @rust-lang/lang
cc @jackpot51 @alevy @phil-opp
* When encountering EOF, point at the last opening brace that does not
have the same indentation level as its close delimiter.
* When encountering the wrong type of close delimiter, point at the
likely correct open delimiter to give a better idea of what went
wrong.
refactor match guard
This is the first step to implement RFC 2294: if-let-guard. Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51114
The second step should be introducing another variant `IfLet` in the Guard enum. I separated them into 2 PRs for the convenience of reviewers.
r? @petrochenkov
