rustdoc: linking to a local proc macro no longer warns
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91274
tried to keep the fix general in case we ever have any other kind of item that occupies
multiple namespaces simultaniously.
Improve handling of rustdoc lints when used with raw doc fragments.
1. `rustdoc::bare_urls` no longer outputs incoherent suggestions if `source_span_for_markdown_range` returns None, instead outputting no suggestion
2. `source_span_for_markdown_range` has one more heuristic, so it will return `None` less often.
3. add ui test to make sure we don't emit nonsense suggestions.
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/135851
1. rustdoc::bare_urls doesn't output
invalid suggestions if source_span_for_markdown_range
fails to find a span
2. source_span_for_markdown_range tries harder to
return a span by applying an additional diagnostic
fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/135851
Emit a warning if the doctest `main` function will not be run
Fixes#140310.
I think we could try to go much further like adding a "link" (ie UI annotations) on the `main` function in the doctest. However that will require some more computation, not sure if it's worth it or not. Can still be done in a follow-up if we want it.
For now, this PR does two things:
1. Pass the `DiagCtxt` to the doctest parser to emit the warning.
2. Correctly generate the `Span` to where the doctest is starting (I hope the way I did it isn't too bad either...).
cc `@fmease`
r? `@notriddle`
rustdoc: Replace unstable flag `--doctest-compilation-args` with a simpler one: `--doctest-build-arg`
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134172.
Context: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137096#issuecomment-2776318800
Yeets the ad hoc shell-like lexer for 'nested' program arguments.
No FCP necessary since the flag is unstable.
I've chosen to replace `compilation` with `build` because it's shorter (you now need to pass it multiple times in order to pass many arguments to the doctest compiler, so it matters a bit) and since I prefer it esthetically.
**Issue**: Even though we don't process the argument passed to `--doctest-build-arg`, we end up passing it via an argument file (`rustc `@argfile`)` which delimits arguments by line break (LF or CRLF, [via](https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/command-line-arguments.html#path-load-command-line-flags-from-a-path)) meaning ultimately the arguments still get split which is unfortunate. Still, I think this change is an improvement over the status quo.
I'll update the tracking issue if/once this PR merges. I'll also add the (CR)LF issue to 'unresolved question'.
r? GuillaumeGomez
r? notriddle
rustdoc: Fix doctest heuristic for main fn wrapping
Fixes#140412 which regressed in #140220 that I reviewed. As mentioned in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/140220#issuecomment-2837061779, at the time I didn't have the time to re-review its latest changes and should've therefore invalided my previous "r=me" and blocked the PR on another review given the fragile nature of the doctest impl. This didn't happen which is my fault.
Contains some other small changes. Diff best reviewed modulo whitespace.
r? ``@GuillaumeGomez``
Fix detection of main function if there are expressions around it
Fixes#140162.
Fixes#139651.
Once this is merged, we can backport and I'll send a follow-up to emit a warning in case a `main` function is about to be "wrapped" (and therefore not run).
r? `@fmease`
try-job: x86_64-mingw-1
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.
Fix breakage when running compiletest with `--test-args=--edition=2015`
Compiletest has an `--edition` flag to change the default edition tests are run with. Unfortunately no test suite successfully executes when that flag is passed. If the edition is set to something greater than 2015 the breakage is expected, since the test suite currently supports only edition 2015 (Ferrous Systems will open an MCP about fixing that soonish). Surprisingly, the test suite is also broken if `--edition=2015` is passed to compiletest. This PR focuses on fixing the latter.
This PR fixes the two categories of failures happening when `--edition=2015` is passed:
* Some edition-specific tests set their edition through `//@ compile-flags` instead of `//@ edition`. Compiletest doesn't parse the compile flags, so it would see no `//@ edition` and add another `--edition` flag, leading to a rustc error.
* Compiletest would add the edition after `//@ compile-flags`, while some tests depend on flags passed to `//@ compile-flags` being the last flags in the rustc invocation.
Note that for the first category, I opted to manually go and replace all `//@ compile-flags` setting an edition with an explicit `//@ edition`. We could've changed compiletest to instead check whether an edition was set in `//@ compile-flags`, but I thought it was better to enforce a consistent way to set the edition in tests.
I also added the edition to the stamp, so that changing `--edition` results in tests being re-executed.
r? `@jieyouxu`
We should enable these to avoid misinterpreting uses of the extended
syntax as code blocks. This happens in practice with multi-paragraph
footnotes, as discovered in #139064.
Fix 2024 edition doctest panic output
Fixes#137970.
The problem was that the output was actually displayed by rustc itself because we're exiting with `Result<(), String>`, and the display is really not great. So instead, we get the output, we print it and then we return an `ExitCode`.
r? ````@aDotInTheVoid````
Greatly simplify doctest parsing and information extraction
The original process was pretty terrible, as it tried to extract information such as attributes by performing matches over tokens like `#!`, which doesn't work very well considering you can have `# ! [`, which is valid.
Also, it now does it in one pass: if the parser is happy, then we try to extract information, otherwise we return early.
r? `@fmease`
rustdoc: Gate unstable `doc(cfg())` predicates
Fixes#138113
Since the extraction process treats `cfg(true)` as having no cfg attribute, we have to do the gating during parsing; so we remove the unused `features` arg from `Cfg::matches`
This commit fixes an internal compiler error (ICE) that occurs when
rustdoc attempts to process macros with a remapped filename. The issue
arose during macro expansion when the `--remap-path-prefix` option was
used.
Instead of passing remapped filenames through, which would trigger the
"attempted to remap an already remapped filename" panic, we now
extract the original local path from remapped filenames before
processing them.
A test case has been added to verify this behavior.
Fixes#138520
Signed-off-by: Charalampos Mitrodimas <charmitro@posteo.net>
