Rollup of 7 pull requests #134605
Merged
Rollup of 7 pull requests #134605
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
On parse errors where an ident is found where one wasn't expected, see if the next elements might have been meant as method call or field access. ``` error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator, found `map` --> $DIR/missing-dot-on-statement-expression.rs:7:29 | LL | let _ = [1, 2, 3].iter()map(|x| x); | ^^^ expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator | help: you might have meant to write a method call | LL | let _ = [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|x| x); | + ```
Detect missing `.` in method chain in `let` bindings and statements On parse errors where an ident is found where one wasn't expected, see if the next elements might have been meant as method call or field access. ``` error: expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator, found `map` --> $DIR/missing-dot-on-statement-expression.rs:7:29 | LL | let _ = [1, 2, 3].iter()map(|x| x); | ^^^ expected one of `.`, `;`, `?`, `else`, or an operator | help: you might have meant to write a method call | LL | let _ = [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|x| x); | + ```
…nikomatsakis Handle `DropKind::ForLint` in coroutines correctly Fixes rust-lang#134566 Fixes rust-lang#134541
Improve prose around basic examples of Iter and IterMut
Improve prose around `as_slice` example of Iter
Improve prose around into_slice example of IterMut Having a part without modification and one with seems redundant, since `into_slice` is only called for the part without. I have brought the modification into the remaining part, although it perhaps does not add much (or only distracts?).
Less unwrap() in documentation I think the common use of `.unwrap()` in examples makes it overrepresented, looking like a more typical way of error handling than it really is in real programs. Therefore, this PR changes a bunch of examples to use different error handling methods, primarily the `?` operator. Additionally, `unwrap()` docs warn that it might abort the program.
Fix parenthesization of chained comparisons by pretty-printer
Example:
```rust
macro_rules! repro {
() => {
1 < 2
};
}
fn main() {
let _ = repro!() == false;
}
```
Previously `-Zunpretty=expanded` would pretty-print this syntactically invalid output: `fn main() { let _ = 1 < 2 == false; }`
```console
error: comparison operators cannot be chained
--> <anon>:8:23
|
8 | fn main() { let _ = 1 < 2 == false; }
| ^ ^^
|
help: parenthesize the comparison
|
8 | fn main() { let _ = (1 < 2) == false; }
| + +
```
With the fix, it will print `fn main() { let _ = (1 < 2) == false; }`.
Making `-Zunpretty=expanded` consistently produce syntactically valid Rust output is important because that is what makes it possible for `cargo expand` to format and perform filtering on the expanded code.
## Review notes
According to `rg '\.fixity\(\)' compiler/` the `fixity` function is called only 3 places:
- /~https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/13170cd787cb733ed24842ee825bcbd98dc01476/compiler/rustc_ast_pretty/src/pprust/state/expr.rs#L283-L287
- /~https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/13170cd787cb733ed24842ee825bcbd98dc01476/compiler/rustc_hir_pretty/src/lib.rs#L1295-L1299
- /~https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/13170cd787cb733ed24842ee825bcbd98dc01476/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L282-L289
The 2 pretty printers definitely want to treat comparisons using `Fixity::None`. That's the whole bug being fixed. Meanwhile, the parser's `Fixity::None` codepath is previously unreachable as indicated by the comment, so as long as `Fixity::None` here behaves exactly the way that `Fixity::Left` used to behave, you can tell that this PR definitely does not constitute any behavior change for the parser.
My guess for why comparison operators were set to `Fixity::Left` instead of `Fixity::None` is that it's a very old workaround for giving a good chained comparisons diagnostic (like what I pasted above). Nowadays that is handled by a different dedicated codepath.
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=5 |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:
previous master: 73c278fd93 In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (6076bee): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)Results (primary -1.7%, secondary 4.5%)This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 766.302s -> 767s (0.09%) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Successful merges:
.in method chain inletbindings and statements #133087 (Detect missing.in method chain inletbindings and statements)DropKind::ForLintin coroutines correctly #134575 (HandleDropKind::ForLintin coroutines correctly)as_sliceexample of Iter #134577 (Improve prose aroundas_sliceexample of Iter)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup