This commit adds a new field to the `Item` AST node in libsyntax to optionally
contain the original token stream that the item itself was parsed from. This is
currently `None` everywhere but is intended for use later with procedural
macros.
This commit extends the current unused macro linter
to support directives like #[allow(unused_macros)]
or #[deny(unused_macros)] directly next to the macro
definition, or in one of the modules the macro is
inside. Before, we only supported such directives
at a per crate level, due to the crate's NodeId
being passed to session.add_lint.
We also had to implement handling of the macro's
NodeId in the lint visitor.
syntax: add `ast::ItemKind::MacroDef`, simplify hygiene info
This PR
- adds a new variant `MacroDef` to `ast::ItemKind` for `macro_rules!` and eventually `macro` items,
- [breaking-change] forbids macro defs without a name (`macro_rules! { () => {} }` compiles today),
- removes `ast::MacroDef`, and
- no longer uses `Mark` and `Invocation` to identify and characterize macro definitions.
- We used to apply (at least) two `Mark`s to an expanded identifier's `SyntaxContext` -- the definition mark(s) and the expansion mark(s). We now only apply the latter.
r? @nrc
Refactor the parser to consume token trees
This is groundwork for efficiently parsing attribute proc macro invocations, bang macro invocations, and `TokenStream`-based attributes and fragment matchers.
This improves parsing performance by 8-15% and expansion performance by 0-5% on a sampling of the compiler's crates.
r? @nrc
Implement `#[proc_macro_attribute]`
This implements `#[proc_macro_attribute]` as described in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1566
The following major (hopefully non-breaking) changes are included:
* Refactor `proc_macro::TokenStream` to use `syntax::tokenstream::TokenStream`.
* `proc_macro::tokenstream::TokenStream` no longer emits newlines between items, this can be trivially restored if desired
* `proc_macro::TokenStream::from_str` does not try to parse an item anymore, moved to `impl MultiItemModifier for CustomDerive` with more informative error message
* Implement `#[proc_macro_attribute]`, which expects functions of the kind `fn(TokenStream, TokenStream) -> TokenStream`
* Reactivated `#![feature(proc_macro)]` and gated `#[proc_macro_attribute]` under it
* `#![feature(proc_macro)]` and `#![feature(custom_attribute)]` are mutually exclusive
* adding `#![feature(proc_macro)]` makes the expansion pass assume that any attributes that are not built-in, or introduced by existing syntax extensions, are proc-macro attributes
* Fix `feature_gate::find_lang_feature_issue()` to not use `unwrap()`
* This change wasn't necessary for this PR, but it helped debugging a problem where I was using the wrong feature string.
* Move "completed feature gate checking" pass to after "name resolution" pass
* This was necessary for proper feature-gating of `#[proc_macro_attribute]` invocations when the `proc_macro` feature flag isn't set.
Prototype/Litmus Test: [Implementation](https://github.com/abonander/anterofit/blob/proc_macro/service-attr/src/lib.rs#L13) -- [Usage](https://github.com/abonander/anterofit/blob/proc_macro/service-attr/examples/post_service.rs#L35)
* Add support for `#[proc_macro]`
* Reactivate `proc_macro` feature and gate `#[proc_macro_attribute]` under it
* Have `#![feature(proc_macro)]` imply `#![feature(use_extern_macros)]`,
error on legacy import of proc macros via `#[macro_use]`
This marks the pushpop_unsafe feature as removed inside the feature_gate.
It was added in commit 1829fa5199 and then
removed again in commit d399098fd8 .
Seems that the second commit forgot to mark it as removed in feature_gate.rs.
This enables us to remove another element from the whitelist of non gate
tested unstable lang features (issue #39059).
syntax: enable attributes and cfg on struct fields
This enables conditional compilation of field initializers in a struct literal, simplifying construction of structs whose fields are themselves conditionally present. For example, the intializer for the constant in the following becomes legal, and has the intuitive effect:
```rust
struct Foo {
#[cfg(unix)]
bar: (),
}
const FOO: Foo = Foo {
#[cfg(unix)]
bar: (),
};
```
It's not clear to me whether this calls for the full RFC process, but the implementation was simple enough that I figured I'd begin the conversation with code.
