Print `token::Interpolated` with token stream pretty printing.
This is a step towards removing `token::Interpolated` (#124141). It unavoidably changes the output of the `stringify!` macro, generally for the better.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Instead of using AST pretty printing.
This is a step towards removing `token::Interpolated`, which will
eventually (in #124141) be replaced with a token stream within invisible
delimiters.
This changes (improves) the output of the `stringify!` macro in some
cases. This is allowed. As the `stringify!` docs say: "Note that the
expanded results of the input tokens may change in the future. You
should be careful if you rely on the output."
Test changes:
- tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs: this used to test both token stream
pretty printing and AST pretty printing via different ways of invoking
of `stringify!` (i.e. `$expr` vs `$tt`). But those two different
invocations now give the same result, which is a nice consistency
improvement. This removes the need for all the `c2*` macros. The AST
pretty printer now has more thorough testing thanks to #125236.
- tests/ui/proc-macro/*: minor improvements where small differences
between `INPUT (DISPLAY)` output and `DEEP-RE-COLLECTED (DISPLAY)`
output disappear.
Remove `NtIdent` and `NtLifetime`
This is one part of the bigger "remove `Nonterminal` and `TokenKind::Interpolated`" change drafted in #114647. More details in the individual commit messages.
r? `@petrochenkov`
The extra span is now recorded in the new `TokenKind::NtIdent` and
`TokenKind::NtLifetime`. These both consist of a single token, and so
there's no operator precedence problems with inserting them directly
into the token stream.
The other way to do this would be to wrap the ident/lifetime in invisible
delimiters, but there's a lot of code that assumes an interpolated
ident/lifetime fits in a single token, and changing all that code to work with
invisible delimiters would have been a pain. (Maybe it could be done in a
follow-up.)
This change might not seem like much of a win, but it's a first step toward the
much bigger and long-desired removal of `Nonterminal` and
`TokenKind::Interpolated`. That change is big and complex enough that it's
worth doing this piece separately. (Indeed, this commit is based on part of a
late commit in #114647, a prior attempt at that big and complex change.)
Avoid clone in `Comments::next`
`Comments::next`, in `rustc_ast_pretty`, has this comment:
```
// FIXME: This shouldn't probably clone lmao
```
The obvious thing to try is to return `Option<&Comment>` instead of `Option<Comment>`. But that leads to multiple borrows all over the place, because `Comments` must be borrowed from `PrintState` and then processed by `&mut self` methods within `PrintState`.
This PR instead rearranges things so that comments are consumed as they are used, preserving the `Option<Comment>` return type without requiring any cloning.
r? `@compiler-errors`
This span records the declaration of the metavariable in the LHS of the macro.
It's used in a couple of error messages. Unfortunately, it gets in the way of
the long-term goal of removing `TokenKind::Interpolated`. So this commit
removes it, which degrades a couple of (obscure) error messages but makes
things simpler and enables the next commit.
The current way of stepping through each comment in `Comments` is a bit
weird. There is a `Vec<Comments>` and a `current` index, which is fine.
The `Comments::next` method clones the current comment but doesn't
advance `current`; the advancing instead happens in `print_comment`,
which is where each cloned comment is actually finally used (or not, in
some cases, if the comment fails to satisfy a predicate).
This commit makes things more iterator-like:
- `Comments::next` now advances `current` instead of `print_comment`.
- `Comments::peek` is added so you can inspect a comment and check a
predicate without consuming it.
- This requires splitting `PrintState::comments` into immutable and
mutable versions. The commit also moves the ref inside the `Option` of
the return type, to save callers from having to use `as_ref`/`as_mut`.
- It also requires adding `PrintState::peek_comment` alongside the
existing `PrintState::next_comment`. (The lifetimes in the signature
of `peek_comment` ended up more complex than I expected.)
We now have a neat separation between consuming (`next`) and
non-consuming (`peek`) uses of each comment. As well as being clearer,
this will facilitate the next commit that avoids unnecessary cloning.
Implement syntax for `impl Trait` to specify its captures explicitly (`feature(precise_capturing)`)
Implements `impl use<'a, 'b, T, U> Sized` syntax that allows users to explicitly list the captured parameters for an opaque, rather than inferring it from the opaque's bounds (or capturing *all* lifetimes under 2024-edition capture rules). This allows us to exclude some implicit captures, so this syntax may be used as a migration strategy for changes due to #117587.
We represent this list of captured params as `PreciseCapturingArg` in AST and HIR, resolving them between `rustc_resolve` and `resolve_bound_vars`. Later on, we validate that the opaques only capture the parameters in this list.
We artificially limit the feature to *require* mentioning all type and const parameters, since we don't currently have support for non-lifetime bivariant generics. This can be relaxed in the future.
We also may need to limit this to require naming *all* lifetime parameters for RPITIT, since GATs have no variance. I have to investigate this. This can also be relaxed in the future.
r? `@oli-obk`
Tracking issue:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123432
Cleanup: Rename `ModSep` to `PathSep`
`::` is usually referred to as the *path separator* (citation needed).
The existing name `ModSep` for *module separator* is a bit misleading since it in fact separates the segments of arbitrary path segments, not only ones resolving to modules. Let me just give a shout-out to associated items (`T::Assoc`, `<Ty as Trait>::function`) and enum variants (`Option::None`).
Motivation: Reduce friction for new contributors, prevent potential confusion.
cc `@petrochenkov`
r? nnethercote or compiler
Add asm goto support to `asm!`
Tracking issue: #119364
This PR implements asm-goto support, using the syntax described in "future possibilities" section of [RFC2873](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2873-inline-asm.html#asm-goto).
Currently I have only implemented the `label` part, not the `fallthrough` part (i.e. fallthrough is implicit). This doesn't reduce the expressive though, since you can use label-break to get arbitrary control flow or simply set a value and rely on jump threading optimisation to get the desired control flow. I can add that later if deemed necessary.
r? ``@Amanieu``
cc ``@ojeda``
Add an ErrorGuaranteed to ast::TyKind::Err (attempt 2)
This makes it more like `hir::TyKind::Err`, and avoids a `has_errors` assertion in `LoweringContext::lower_ty_direct`.
r? ```@oli-obk```
This mostly works well, and eliminates a couple of delayed bugs.
One annoying thing is that we should really also add an
`ErrorGuaranteed` to `proc_macro::bridge::LitKind::Err`. But that's
difficult because `proc_macro` doesn't have access to `ErrorGuaranteed`,
so we have to fake it.
This makes it more like `hir::TyKind::Err`, and avoids a
`span_delayed_bug` call in `LoweringContext::lower_ty_direct`.
It also requires adding `ast::TyKind::Dummy`, now that
`ast::TyKind::Err` can't be used for that purpose in the absence of an
error emission.
There are a couple of cases that aren't as neat as I would have liked,
marked with `FIXME` comments.
There are a number of cases where we erroneously omit the space between
two tokens, all involving an exception to a more general case. The
affected tokens are `$`, `!`, `.`, `,`, and `let` followed by a
parenthesis.
This fixes a lot of FIXME comments.
Fix parenthesization of subexprs containing statement boundary
This PR fixes a multitude of false negatives and false positives in the AST pretty printer's parenthesis insertion related to statement boundaries — statements which terminate unexpectedly early if there aren't parentheses.
Without this fix, the AST pretty printer (including both `stringify!` and `rustc -Zunpretty=expanded`) is prone to producing output which is not syntactically valid Rust. Invalid output is problematic because it means Rustfmt is unable to parse the output of `cargo expand`, for example, causing friction by forcing someone trying to debug a macro into reading poorly formatted code.
I believe the set of bugs fixed in this PR account for the most prevalent reason that `cargo expand` produces invalid output in real-world usage.
Fixes#98790.
## False negatives
The following is a correct program — `cargo check` succeeds.
```rust
macro_rules! m {
($e:expr) => {
match () { _ => $e }
};
}
fn main() {
m!({ 1 } - 1);
}
```
But `rustc -Zunpretty=expanded main.rs` produces output that is invalid Rust syntax, because parenthesization is needed and not being done by the pretty printer.
```rust
fn main() { match () { _ => { 1 } - 1, }; }
```
Piping this expanded code to rustfmt, it fails to parse.
```console
error: unexpected `,` in pattern
--> <stdin>:1:38
|
1 | fn main() { match () { _ => { 1 } - 1, }; }
| ^
|
help: try adding parentheses to match on a tuple...
|
1 | fn main() { match () { _ => { 1 } (- 1,) }; }
| + +
help: ...or a vertical bar to match on multiple alternatives
|
1 | fn main() { match () { _ => { 1 } - 1 | }; }
| ~~~~~
```
Fixed output after this PR:
```rust
fn main() { match () { _ => ({ 1 }) - 1, }; }
```
## False positives
Less problematic, but worth fixing (just like #118726).
```rust
fn main() {
let _ = match () { _ => 1 } - 1;
}
```
Output of `rustc -Zunpretty=expanded lib.rs` before this PR. There is no reason parentheses would need to be inserted there.
```rust
fn main() { let _ = (match () { _ => 1, }) - 1; }
```
After this PR:
```rust
fn main() { let _ = match () { _ => 1, } - 1; }
```
## Alternatives considered
In this PR I opted to parenthesize only the leading subexpression causing the statement boundary, rather than the entire statement. Example:
```rust
macro_rules! m {
($e:expr) => {
$e
};
}
fn main() {
m!(loop { break [1]; }[0] - 1);
}
```
This PR produces the following pretty-printed contents for fn main:
```rust
(loop { break [1]; })[0] - 1;
```
A different equally correct output would be:
```rust
(loop { break [1]; }[0] - 1);
```
I chose the one I did because it is the *only* approach used by handwritten code in the standard library and compiler. There are 4 places where parenthesization is being used to prevent a statement boundary, and in all 4, the developer has chosen to parenthesize the smallest subexpression rather than the whole statement:
b37d43efd9/compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift/example/alloc_system.rs (L102)b37d43efd9/compiler/rustc_parse/src/errors.rs (L1021-L1029)b37d43efd9/library/core/src/future/poll_fn.rs (L151)b37d43efd9/library/core/src/ops/range.rs (L824-L828)
Clairify `ast::PatKind::Struct` presese of `..` by using an enum instead of a bool
The bool is mainly used for when a `..` is present, but it is also set on recovery to avoid errors. The doc comment not describes both of these cases.
See cee794ee98/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/pat.rs (L890-L897) for the only place this is constructed.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Do not parenthesize exterior struct lit inside match guards
Before this PR, the AST pretty-printer injects parentheses around expressions any time parens _could_ be needed depending on what else is in the code that surrounds that expression. But the pretty-printer did not pass around enough context to understand whether parentheses really _are_ needed on any particular expression. As a consequence, there are false positives where unneeded parentheses are being inserted.
Example:
```rust
#![feature(if_let_guard)]
macro_rules! pp {
($e:expr) => {
stringify!($e)
};
}
fn main() {
println!("{}", pp!(match () { () if let _ = Struct {} => {} }));
}
```
**Before:**
```console
match () { () if let _ = (Struct {}) => {} }
```
**After:**
```console
match () { () if let _ = Struct {} => {} }
```
This PR introduces a bit of state that is passed across various expression printing methods to help understand accurately whether particular situations require parentheses injected by the pretty printer, and it fixes one such false positive involving match guards as shown above.
There are other parenthesization false positive cases not fixed by this PR. I intend to address these in follow-up PRs. For example here is one: the expression `{ let _ = match x {} + 1; }` is pretty-printed as `{ let _ = (match x {}) + 1; }` despite there being no reason for parentheses to appear there.
