Remove `--extern-location` and all associated code
`--extern-location` was an experiment to investigate the best way to
generate useful diagnostics for unused dependency warnings by enabling a
build system to identify the corresponding build config.
While I did successfully use this, I've since been convinced the
alternative `--json unused-externs` mechanism is the way to go, and
there's no point in having two mechanisms with basically the same
functionality.
This effectively reverts https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/72603
`--extern-location` was an experiment to investigate the best way to
generate useful diagnostics for unused dependency warnings by enabling a
build system to identify the corresponding build config.
While I did successfully use this, I've since been convinced the
alternative `--json unused-externs` mechanism is the way to go, and
there's no point in having two mechanisms with basically the same
functionality.
This effectively reverts https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/72603
`MultiSpan` contains labels, which are more complicated with the
introduction of diagnostic translation and will use types from
`rustc_errors` - however, `rustc_errors` depends on `rustc_span` so
`rustc_span` cannot use types like `DiagnosticMessage` without
dependency cycles. Introduce a new `rustc_error_messages` crate that can
contain `DiagnosticMessage` and `MultiSpan`.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
Improve `expect` impl and handle `#[expect(unfulfilled_lint_expectations)]` (RFC 2383)
This PR updates unstable `ExpectationIds` in stashed diagnostics and adds some asserts to ensure that the stored expectations are really empty in the end. Additionally, it handles the `#[expect(unfulfilled_lint_expectations)]` case.
According to the [Errors and lints docs](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/diagnostics.html#diagnostic-levels) the `error` level should only be used _"when the compiler detects a problem that makes it unable to compile the program"_. As this isn't the case with `#[expect(unfulfilled_lint_expectations)]` I decided to only create a warning. To avoid adding a new lint only for this case, I simply emit a `unfulfilled_lint_expectations` diagnostic with an additional note.
---
r? `@wesleywiser` I'm requesting a review from you since you reviewed the previous PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/87835. You are welcome to reassign it if you're busy 🙃
rfc: [RFC-2383](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2383-lint-reasons.html)
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85549
cc: `@flip1995` In case you're also interested in this :)
We already have a general mechanism for deduplicating reported
lints, so there's no need to have an additional one for early lints
specifically. This allows us to remove some `PartialEq` impls.
Lint bare traits in AstConv.
Removing the lint from lowering allows to:
- make lowering querification easier;
- have the lint implementation in only one place.
r? `@estebank`
remove a empty line
import `module_to_string`
use `contains("test")`
show a suggestion in case module starts_with/ends_with "test"
replace `parent` with `containing`
Currently, we parse macros at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }`) as expressions, rather than
statements. This means that a macro invoked in this position
cannot expand to items or semicolon-terminated expressions.
In the future, we might want to start parsing these kinds of macros
as statements. This would make expansion more 'token-based'
(i.e. macro expansion behaves (almost) as if you just textually
replaced the macro invocation with its output). However,
this is a breaking change (see PR #78991), so it will require
further discussion.
Since the current behavior will not be changing any time soon,
we need to address the interaction with the
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` lint. Since we are parsing
the result of macro expansion as an expression, we will emit a lint
if there's a trailing semicolon in the macro output. However, this
results in a somewhat confusing message for users, since it visually
looks like there should be no problem with having a semicolon
at the end of a block
(e.g. `fn foo() { my_macro!() }` => `fn foo() { produced_expr; }`)
To help reduce confusion, this commit adds a note explaining
that the macro is being interpreted as an expression. Additionally,
we suggest adding a semicolon after the macro *invocation* - this
will cause us to parse the macro call as a statement. We do *not*
use a structured suggestion for this, since the user may actually
want to remove the semicolon from the macro definition (allowing
the block to evaluate to the expression produced by the macro).
Warn on inert attributes used on bang macro invocation
These attributes are currently discarded.
This may change in the future (see #63221), but for now,
placing inert attributes on a macro invocation does nothing,
so we should warn users about it.
Technically, it's possible for there to be attribute macro
on the same macro invocation (or at a higher scope), which
inspects the inert attribute. For example:
```rust
#[look_for_inline_attr]
#[inline]
my_macro!()
#[look_for_nested_inline]
mod foo { #[inline] my_macro!() }
```
However, this would be a very strange thing to do.
Anyone running into this can manually suppress the warning.
These attributes are currently discarded.
This may change in the future (see #63221), but for now,
placing inert attributes on a macro invocation does nothing,
so we should warn users about it.
Technically, it's possible for there to be attribute macro
on the same macro invocation (or at a higher scope), which
inspects the inert attribute. For example:
```rust
#[look_for_inline_attr]
#[inline]
my_macro!()
#[look_for_nested_inline]
mod foo { #[inline] my_macro!() }
```
However, this would be a very strange thing to do.
Anyone running into this can manually suppress the warning.
When we need to emit a lint at a macro invocation, we currently use the
`NodeId` of its parent definition (e.g. the enclosing function). This
means that any `#[allow]` / `#[deny]` attributes placed 'closer' to the
macro (e.g. on an enclosing block or statement) will have no effect.
This commit computes a better `lint_node_id` in `InvocationCollector`.
When we visit/flat_map an AST node, we assign it a `NodeId` (earlier
than we normally would), and store than `NodeId` in current
`ExpansionData`. When we collect a macro invocation, the current
`lint_node_id` gets cloned along with our `ExpansionData`, allowing it
to be used if we need to emit a lint later on.
This improves the handling of `#[allow]` / `#[deny]` for
`SEMICOLON_IN_EXPRESSIONS_FROM_MACROS` and some `asm!`-related lints.
The 'legacy derive helpers' lint retains its current behavior
(I've inlined the now-removed `lint_node_id` function), since
there isn't an `ExpansionData` readily available.
Turn non_fmt_panic into a future_incompatible edition lint.
This turns the `non_fmt_panic` lint into a future_incompatible edition lint, so it becomes part of the `rust_2021_compatibility` group. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/85894.
This lint produces both warnings about semantical changes (e.g. `panic!("{{")`) and things that will become hard errors (e.g. `panic!("{")`). So I added a `explain_reason: false` that supresses the default "this will become a hard error" or "the semantics will change" message, and instead added a note depending on the situation. (cc `@rylev)`
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Now that future-incompat-report support has landed in nightly Cargo, we
can start to make progress towards removing the various proc-macro
back-compat hacks that have accumulated in the compiler.
This PR introduces a new lint `proc_macro_back_compat`, which results in
a future-incompat-report entry being generated. All proc-macro
back-compat warnings will be grouped under this lint. Note that this
lint will never actually become a hard error - instead, we will remove
the special cases for various macros, which will cause older versions of
those crates to emit some other error.
I've added code to fire this lint for the `time-macros-impl` case. This
is the easiest case out of all of our current back-compat hacks - the
crate was renamed to `time-macros`, so seeing a filename with
`time-macros-impl` guarantees that an older version of the parent `time`
crate is in use.
When Cargo's future-incompat-report feature gets stabilized, affected
users will start to see future-incompat warnings when they build their
crates.
