Extend `QueryStability` to handle `IntoIterator` implementations
This PR extends the `rustc::potential_query_instability` lint to check values passed as `IntoIterator` implementations.
Full disclosure: I want the lint to warn about this line (please see #138871 for why): aa8f0fd716/src/librustdoc/json/mod.rs (L261)
However, the lint warns about several other lines as well.
Final note: the functions `get_callee_generic_args_and_args` and `get_input_traits_and_projections` were copied directly from [Clippy's source code](4fd8c04da0/src/tools/clippy/clippy_lints/src/methods/unnecessary_to_owned.rs (L445-L496)).
Fix adjacent code
Fix duplicate warning; merge test into `tests/ui-fulldeps/internal-lints`
Use `rustc_middle::ty::FnSig::inputs`
Address two review comments
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139345#discussion_r2109006991
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139345#discussion_r2109058588
Use `Instance::try_resolve`
Import `rustc_middle::ty::Ty` as `Ty` rather than `MiddleTy`
Simplify predicate handling
Add more `#[allow(rustc::potential_query_instability)]` following rebase
Remove two `#[allow(rustc::potential_query_instability)]` following rebase
Address review comment
Update compiler/rustc_lint/src/internal.rs
Co-authored-by: lcnr <rust@lcnr.de>
Add infrastructure to apply a derive macro to arguments, consuming and
returning a `TokenTree` only.
Handle `SyntaxExtensionKind::MacroRules` when expanding a derive, if the
macro's kinds support derive.
Add tests covering various cases of `macro_rules` derives.
Note that due to a pre-existing FIXME in `expand.rs`, derives are
re-queued and some errors get emitted twice. Duplicate diagnostic
suppression makes them not visible, but the FIXME should still get
fixed.
Handle macros with multiple kinds, and improve errors
(I recommend reviewing this commit-by-commit.)
Switch to a bitflags `MacroKinds` to support macros with more than one kind
Review everything that uses `MacroKind`, and switch anything that could refer to more than one kind to use `MacroKinds`.
Add a new `SyntaxExtensionKind::MacroRules` for `macro_rules!` macros, using the concrete `MacroRulesMacroExpander` type, and have it track which kinds it can handle. Eliminate the separate optional `attr_ext`, now that a `SyntaxExtension` can handle multiple macro kinds.
This also avoids the need to downcast when calling methods on `MacroRulesMacroExpander`, such as `get_unused_rule`.
Integrate macro kind checking into name resolution's `sub_namespace_match`, so that we only find a macro if it's the right type, and eliminate the special-case hack for attributes.
This allows detecting and report macro kind mismatches early, and more precisely, improving various error messages. In particular, this eliminates the case in `failed_to_match_macro` to check for a function-like invocation of a macro with no function-like rules.
Instead, macro kind mismatches now result in an unresolved macro, and we detect this case in `unresolved_macro_suggestions`, which now carefully distinguishes between a kind mismatch and other errors.
This also handles cases of forward-referenced attributes and cyclic attributes.
----
In this PR, I've minimally fixed up `rustdoc` so that it compiles and passes tests. This is just the minimal necessary fixes to handle the switch to `MacroKinds`, and it only works for macros that don't actually have multiple kinds. This will panic (with a `todo!`) if it encounters a macro with multiple kinds.
rustdoc needs further fixes to handle macros with multiple kinds, and to handle attributes and derive macros that aren't proc macros. I'd appreciate some help from a rustdoc expert on that.
----
r? ````````@petrochenkov````````
The use of `Not` to describe the `!` in `macro_rules!` reads
confusingly, and also results in search collisions with the diagnostic
structure `MacroRulesNot` elsewhere in the compiler. Rename it to use
the more conventional `Bang` for `!`.
This eliminates the case in `failed_to_match_macro` to check for a
function-like invocation of a macro with no function-like rules.
Instead, macro kind mismatches now result in an unresolved macro, and we
detect this case in `unresolved_macro_suggestions`, which now carefully
distinguishes between a kind mismatch and other errors.
This also handles cases of forward-referenced attributes and cyclic
attributes.
Expand test coverage to include all of these cases.
Review everything that uses `MacroKind`, and switch anything that could
refer to more than one kind to use `MacroKinds`.
Add a new `SyntaxExtensionKind::MacroRules` for `macro_rules!` macros,
using the concrete `MacroRulesMacroExpander` type, and have it track
which kinds it can handle. Eliminate the separate optional `attr_ext`,
now that a `SyntaxExtension` can handle multiple macro kinds.
This also avoids the need to downcast when calling methods on
`MacroRulesMacroExpander`, such as `get_unused_rule`.
Integrate macro kind checking into name resolution's
`sub_namespace_match`, so that we only find a macro if it's the right
type, and eliminate the special-case hack for attributes.
Revert "Port `#[allow_internal_unsafe]` to the new attribute system"
This reverts commit 4f7a6ace9e2f2192af7b5d32f4b1664189e0e143 (PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144857)
r? `@Kobzol`
cc: `@scrabsha`
clean revert it seems :3
Implement declarative (`macro_rules!`) attribute macros (RFC 3697)
This implements [RFC 3697](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/143547), "Declarative (`macro_rules!`) attribute macros".
I would suggest reading this commit-by-commit. This first introduces the
feature gate, then adds parsing for attribute rules (doing nothing with them),
then adds the ability to look up and apply `macro_rules!` attributes by path,
then adds support for local attributes, then adds a test, and finally makes
various improvements to errors.
Add infrastructure to apply an attribute macro given argument tokens and
body tokens.
Teach the resolver to consider `macro_rules` macros when looking for an
attribute via a path.
This does not yet handle local `macro_rules` attributes.
Detect more `cfg`d out items in resolution errors
Use a visitor to collect *all* items (including those nested) that were stripped behind a `cfg` condition.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find function `f` in this scope
--> $DIR/nested-cfg-attrs.rs:4:13
|
LL | fn main() { f() }
| ^ not found in this scope
|
note: found an item that was configured out
--> $DIR/nested-cfg-attrs.rs:2:4
|
LL | fn f() {}
| ^
note: the item is gated here
--> $DIR/nested-cfg-attrs.rs:1:35
|
LL | #[cfg_attr(all(), cfg_attr(all(), cfg(FALSE)))]
| ^^^^^^^^^^
```
Use a visitor to collect *all* items (including those nested) that were stripped behind a `cfg` condition.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find function `f` in this scope
--> $DIR/nested-cfg-attrs.rs:4:13
|
LL | fn main() { f() }
| ^ not found in this scope
|
note: found an item that was configured out
--> $DIR/nested-cfg-attrs.rs:2:4
|
LL | fn f() {}
| ^
note: the item is gated here
--> $DIR/nested-cfg-attrs.rs:1:35
|
LL | #[cfg_attr(all(), cfg_attr(all(), cfg(FALSE)))]
| ^^^^^^^^^^
```
Port the proc macro attributes to the new attribute parsing infrastructure
Ports `#[proc_macro]`, `#[proc_macro_attribute]`, `#[proc_macro_derive]` and `#[rustc_builtin_macro]` to the new attribute parsing infrastructure for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131229#issuecomment-2971351163
I've split this PR into commits for reviewability, and left some comments to clarify things
I did 4 related attributes in one PR because they share a lot of their code and logic, and doing them separately is kind of annoying as I need to leave both the old and new parsing in place then.
r? ``@oli-obk``
cc ``@jdonszelmann``
Rather than adding `get_unused_rule` to the `TTMacroExpander` trait, put
it on the concrete `MacroRulesMacroExpander`, and downcast to that type
via `Any` in order to call it.
Suggested-by: Vadim Petrochenkov <vadim.petrochenkov@gmail.com>
Make slice comparisons const
This needed a fix for `derive_const`, too, as it wasn't usable in libcore anymore as trait impls need const stability attributes. I think we can't use the same system as normal trait impls while `const_trait_impl` is still unstable.
r? ```@fee1-dead```
cc rust-lang/rust#143800
Fix ice for feature-gated `cfg` attributes applied to the crate
This PR fixes two fixes:
1. When a feature gated option of the `cfg` attribute is applied to the crate, an ICE would occur because features are not yet available at that stage. This is fixed by ignoring the feature gate at that point, the attribute will later be re-checked (this was already done) when the feature gate is available. Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/143977
2. Errors and lints on the `cfg` attribute applied to the crate would be produced twice, because of the re-checking. This is fixed by not producing any errors and lints during the first run.
The added regression test checks both problems.
r? ``@jdonszelmann``
make `cfg_select` a builtin macro
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115585
This parses mostly the same as the `macro cfg_select` version, except:
1. wrapping in double brackets is no longer supported (or needed): `cfg_select {{ /* ... */ }}` is now rejected.
2. in an expression context, the rhs is no longer wrapped in a block, so that this now works:
```rust
fn main() {
println!(cfg_select! {
unix => { "foo" }
_ => { "bar" }
});
}
```
3. a single wildcard rule is now supported: `cfg_select { _ => 1 }` now works
I've also added an error if none of the rules evaluate to true, and warnings for any arms that follow the `_` wildcard rule.
cc `@traviscross` if I'm missing any feature that should/should not be included
r? `@petrochenkov` for the macro logic details
Give a more user-friendly diagnostic about the following:
* Trailing tokens within braces, e.g. `${foo() extra}`
* Missing parentheses, e.g. `${foo}`
* Incorrect number of arguments, with a hint about correct usage.
The MBE parser checks rules at initial parse time to see if their RHS
has `compile_error!` in it, and returns a list of rule indexes and LHS
spans that don't map to `compile_error!`, for use in unused macro rule
checking.
Instead, have the unused macro rule reporting ask the macro for the rule
to report, and let the macro check at that time. That avoids checking
rules unless they're unused.
In the process, refactor the data structure used to store macro rules,
to group the LHS and RHS (and LHS span) of each rule together, and
refactor the unused rule tracking to only track rule indexes.
This ends up being a net simplification, and reduction in code size.
