Rollup of 12 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #50302 (Add query search order check)
- #50320 (Fix invalid path generation in rustdoc search)
- #50349 (Rename "show type declaration" to "show declaration")
- #50360 (Clarify wordings of the `unstable_name_collision` lint.)
- #50365 (Use two vectors in nearest_common_ancestor.)
- #50393 (Allow unaligned reads in constants)
- #50401 (Revert "Implement FromStr for PathBuf")
- #50406 (Forbid constructing empty identifiers from concat_idents)
- #50407 (Always inline simple BytePos and CharPos methods.)
- #50416 (check if the token is a lifetime before parsing)
- #50417 (Update Cargo)
- #50421 (Fix ICE when using a..=b in a closure.)
Failed merges:
Warn on pointless #[derive] in more places
This fixes the regression in #49934 and ensures that unused `#[derive]` invocations on statements, expressions and generic type parameters survive to trip the `unused_attributes` lint. There is a separate warning hardcoded for `#[derive]` on macro invocations since linting (even the early-lint pass) occurs after expansion. This also adds regression tests for some nodes that were already warning properly.
closes#49934
This fixes the regression in #49934 and ensures that unused `#[derive]`s on statements, expressions and generic type parameters survive to trip the `unused_attributes` lint. For `#[derive]` on macro invocations it has a hardcoded warning since linting occurs after expansion. This also adds regression testing for some nodes that were already warning properly.
closes#49934
This commit starts to lay some groundwork for the stabilization of custom
attribute invocations and general procedural macros. It applies a number of
changes discussed on [internals] as well as a [recent issue][issue], namely:
* The path used to specify a custom attribute must be of length one and cannot
be a global path. This'll help future-proof us against any ambiguities and
give us more time to settle the precise syntax. In the meantime though a bare
identifier can be used and imported to invoke a custom attribute macro. A new
feature gate, `proc_macro_path_invoc`, was added to gate multi-segment paths
and absolute paths.
* The set of items which can be annotated by a custom procedural attribute has
been restricted. Statements, expressions, and modules are disallowed behind
two new feature gates: `proc_macro_expr` and `proc_macro_mod`.
* The input to procedural macro attributes has been restricted and adjusted.
Today an invocation like `#[foo(bar)]` will receive `(bar)` as the input token
stream, but after this PR it will only receive `bar` (the delimiters were
removed). Invocations like `#[foo]` are still allowed and will be invoked in
the same way as `#[foo()]`. This is a **breaking change** for all nightly
users as the syntax coming in to procedural macros will be tweaked slightly.
* Procedural macros (`foo!()` style) can only be expanded to item-like items by
default. A separate feature gate, `proc_macro_non_items`, is required to
expand to items like expressions, statements, etc.
Closes#50038
[internals]: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/help-stabilize-a-subset-of-macros-2-0/7252
[issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/50038
Update `?` repetition disambiguation.
**Do not merge** (yet)
This is a test implementation of some ideas from discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48075 . This PR
- disallows `?` repetition from taking a separator, since the separator is never used.
- disallows the use of `?` as a separator. This allows patterns like `$(a)?+` to match `+` and `a+` rather than `a?a?a`. This is a _breaking change_, but maybe that's ok? Perhaps a crater run is the right approach?
cc @durka @alexreg @nikomatsakis
Fix implicit closure return type generation for libsyntax
The `lambda` function for constructing closures in libsyntax was explicitly setting the return type to `_`, which resulted in incorrect corresponding syntax (as `|| -> _ x` is not valid, without the enclosing brackets). This meant the generated code, when printed, was invalid.
I also took the opportunity to slightly improve the generated code for the `RustcEncodable::encode` method for unit structs.
Fixes#42213.
check stability of macro invocations
I haven't implemented tests yet but this should be a pretty solid prototype. I think as-implemented it will also stability-check macro invocations in the same crate, dunno if we want that or not.
I don't know if we want this to go through `rustc::middle::stability` or not, considering the information there wouldn't be available at the time of macro expansion (even for external crates, right?).
r? @nrc
closes#34079
cc @petrochenkov @durka @jseyfried #38356
Comprehensively support trailing commas in std/core macros
I carefully organized the changes into four commits:
* Test cases
* Fixes for `macro_rules!` macros
* Fixes for builtin macros
* Docs for builtins
**I can easily scale this back to just the first two commits for now if such is desired.**
### Breaking (?) changes
* This fixes#48042, which is a breaking change that I hope people can agree is just a bugfix for an extremely dark corner case.
* To fix five of the builtins, this changes `syntax::ext::base::get_single_str_from_tts` to accept a trailing comma, and revises the documentation so that this aspect is not surprising. **I made this change under the (hopefully correct) understanding that `libsyntax` is private rustc implementation detail.** After reviewing all call sites (which were, you guessed it, *precisely those five macros*), I believe the revised semantics are closer to the intended spirit of the function.
### Changes which may require concensus
Up until now, it could be argued that some or all the following macros did not conceptually take a comma-separated list, because they only took one argument:
* **`cfg(unix,)`** (most notable since cfg! is unique in taking a meta tag)
* **`include{,_bytes,_str}("file.rs",)`** (in item form this might be written as "`include!{"file.rs",}`" which is even slightly more odd)
* **`compile_error("message",);`**
* **`option_env!("PATH",)`**
* **`try!(Ok(()),)`**
So I think these particular changes may require some sort of consensus. **All of the fixes for builtins are included this list, so if we want to defer these decisions to later then I can scale this PR back to just the first two commits.**
### Other notes/general requests for comment
* Do we have a big checklist somewhere of "things to do when adding macros?" My hope is for `run-pass/macro-comma-support.rs` to remain comprehensive.
* Originally I wanted the tests to also comprehensively forbid double trailing commas. However, this didn't work out too well: [see this gist and the giant FIXME in it](https://gist.github.com/ExpHP/6fc40e82f3d73267c4e590a9a94966f1#file-compile-fail_macro-comma-support-rs-L33-L50)
* I did not touch `select!`. It appears to me to be a complete mess, and its trailing comma mishaps are only the tip of the iceberg.
* There are [some compile-fail test cases](5fa97c35da/src/test/compile-fail/macro-comma-behavior.rs (L49-L52)) that didn't seem to work (rustc emits errors, but compile-fail doesn't acknowledge them), so they are disabled. Any clues? (Possibly related: These happen to be precisely the set of errors which are tagged by rustc as "this error originates in a macro outside of the current crate".)
---
Fixes#48042Closes#46241
