Modify `AttributeTemplate` to support list of alternatives for list and name value attribute styles.
Suggestions now provide more correct suggested code:
```
error[E0805]: malformed `used` attribute input
--> $DIR/used_with_multi_args.rs:3:1
|
LL | #[used(compiler, linker)]
| ^^^^^^------------------^
| |
| expected a single argument here
|
help: try changing it to one of the following valid forms of the attribute
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used(compiler)]
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used(linker)]
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used]
|
```
instead of the prior "masking" of the lack of this feature by suggesting pipe-separated lists:
```
error[E0805]: malformed `used` attribute input
--> $DIR/used_with_multi_args.rs:3:1
|
LL | #[used(compiler, linker)]
| ^^^^^^------------------^
| |
| expected a single argument here
|
help: try changing it to one of the following valid forms of the attribute
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used(compiler|linker)]
|
LL - #[used(compiler, linker)]
LL + #[used]
|
```
Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals`
Closes#131204
`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated
This will end up conflicting with the test in #138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating
--
# Stabilization Report
## General design
### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
[RFC 3695](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695), none.
### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
None
### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
None
## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
Yes; only positive feedback was received.
## Implementation quality
### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
Implemented in [#131034](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131034).
### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
- [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs)
- [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs)
- [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs)
- [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs)
- Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs`
- Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs`
### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature.
### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None
### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
- `@clubby789` (RFC)
- `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc)
### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
`rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized.
## Type system and execution rules
### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
