-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.7k
Port #[crate_name]
to the new attribute parsing infrastructure
#137729
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
04bafec
to
3898182
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
3898182
to
81fc9d1
Compare
4e90cee
to
21838d5
Compare
21838d5
to
d1ee9c4
Compare
@fmease and I decided to delay this PR for a bit until more diagnostic infra for attrs lands (hopefully next week) to make the duplicate error a warning to be consistent with current master. |
r=fmease,bjorn3 once that PR lands and you can downgrade the error to a lint warning again. @bors delegate+ |
✌️ @jdonszelmann, you can now approve this pull request! If @fmease told you to " |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Hi @jdonszelmann and @fmease, #137687 has reached beta so it would be great if we could resolve that via a beta-backport of this PR. Do you think it's possible to resolve the review feedback and merge this PR in the next week or so? I can probably pitch in to help if necessary 🙂 |
Hi there. We wanted to delay this until attribute diagnostics. Something that should not be a lot of work but I have not worked as much on recently as I maybe should. I can't to this tomorrow, but likely next week. The pr has been reviewed but there was a bit of an issue around incremental, which I now know how to solve but just haven't yet. Is that a reasonable timeframe? I am pretty busy with organising rust week atm, but knowing the solution I guess the only important thing is that it gets quick reviews? Let me know how that sounds |
Just to clarify, will this PR then depend on the attribute diagnostics work? (Is that #138164?) Generally, for backports, we try to keep the backport as small as possible so if this PR can be made to work independently of that PR (possibly even with a degraded diagnostics experience), that would be highly preferred. |
No. We decided to delay this because it's relatively low prio and any nice and permanent solution for this depends on that. I'll make a temp fix that at least doesn't ice separately then, that sounds better for now. I don't mind doing it, I know the problem now and then I also know how to fix it permanently later. You'll hear from me |
Note that #137687 actually has two separate problems/subissues:
This PR only appears to address the first problem. The second problem would probably need to have a separate fix. |
ok this is weird, I've copied just the tests over to master to fix it in a temporary way, but can no longer reporoduce the issue. Something else must have solved it in the meantime. Let me see what. |
(I know I've said this in the other PR too, but just in case) Just a heads up: I split #137687 into two issues:
|
d1ee9c4
to
1f5c49f
Compare
#[crate_name]
to a new-style attribute parser#[crate_name]
to a new-style attribute parser
#[crate_name]
to a new-style attribute parser#[crate_name]
to the new attribute parsing infrastructure
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #145728) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
e8dac5d
to
91f38e2
Compare
This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
This PR just keeps on giving hehe |
rebased to incorporate @joshtriplett 's changes to early lints which makes things much nicer. |
1a239f7
to
5dede49
Compare
5dede49
to
cfeb113
Compare
cfeb113
to
d146c5d
Compare
@@ -361,12 +362,8 @@ fn expr_to_lit( | |||
// the error because an earlier error will have already | |||
// been reported. | |||
let msg = "attribute value must be a literal"; | |||
let mut err = psess.dcx().struct_span_err(span, msg); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
there's a subtle bug in this version, fixed in my last commit. When an expression in an attribute is a macro, and the macro expands to a literal, and we parse an attribute with ShouldEmit::Nothing, we would delay that as a bug expecting a second parse to emit the error. However, when the macro then expands to a literal, we don't hit the same codepath and we never emit an error about this. The delayed bug turns into an ICE.
A very similar problem was happening in February already (#137687) which was recognized and even a backport was made for it. However, in later versions it still made it to stable.
The last commit of this PR adds tests for these cases and fixes this by, when we expect a literal, but have ShouldEmit::Nothing, we don't delay a bug, instead we do nothing. This is correct because if the macro indeed turns into a literal, the second parse might very well be correct. We shouldn't have delayed a bug at all.
Specifically for crate_name, we parse with ShouldEmit::EarlyFatal so when it cares about this being a literal, it will error about it as it should.
error: attribute value must be a literal | ||
--> $DIR/path-attr-in-const-block.rs:6:19 | ||
| | ||
LL | #![path = foo!()] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
extra error, but this is correct/expected. bonus!
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ | |||
//@ check-pass | |||
#[deprecated = concat !()] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
regression test for a new case of #137687
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ | |||
#![deny(unused)] | |||
|
|||
#[crate_name = concat !()] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
regression test for #137687 (ICEs on stable currently: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2024&gist=fc3557244535c7ed2a625b5741cc6e5f)
d146c5d
to
9a7d66d
Compare
r? @fmease
Closes #137687