Rollup of 3 pull requests #128268
Closed
Rollup of 3 pull requests #128268
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
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
`missing_fragment_specifier` has been a future compatibility warning since 2017. Uplifting it to an unconditional hard error was attempted in 2020, but eventually reverted due to fallout. Make it an error only in edition >= 2024, leaving the lint for older editions. This change will make it easier to support more macro syntax that relies on usage of `$`. Fixes <rust-lang#40107>
…r-e2024, r=petrochenkov Make `missing_fragment_specifier` an error in edition 2024 `missing_fragment_specifier` has been a future compatibility warning since 2017. Uplifting it to an unconditional hard error was attempted in 2020, but eventually reverted due to fallout. Make it an error only in edition >= 2024, leaving the lint for older editions. This change will make it easier to support more macro syntax that relies on usage of `$`. Fixes <rust-lang#40107> --- It is rather late for the edition but since this change is relatively small, it seems worth at least bringing up. This follows a brief [Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/268952-edition/topic/.60.20DBD.20-.3E.20hard.20error) (cc `@tmandry).` Making this an edition-dependent lint has come up before but there was not a strong motivation. I am proposing it at this time because this would simplify the [named macro capture groups](rust-lang/rfcs#3649) RFC, which has had mildly positive response, and makes use of new `$` syntax in the matcher. The proposed syntax currently parses as metavariables without a fragment specifier; this warning is raised, but there are no errors. It is obviously not known that this specific RFC will eventually be accepted, but forbidding `missing_fragment_specifier` should make it easier to support any new syntax in the future that makes use of `$` in different ways. The syntax conflict is also not impossible to overcome, but making it clear that unnamed metavariables are rejected makes things more straightforward and should allow for better diagnostics. `@Mark-Simulacrum` suggested making this forbid-by-default instead of an error at rust-lang#40107 (comment), but I don't think this would allow the same level of syntax flexibility. It is also possible to reconsider making this an unconditional error since four years have elapsed since the previous attempt, but this seems likely to hit the same pitfalls. (Possibly worth a crater run?) Tracking: - rust-lang#128143
…r=Amanieu
improve error message when `global_asm!` uses `asm!` options
specifically, what was
error: expected one of `)`, `att_syntax`, or `raw`, found `preserves_flags`
--> $DIR/bad-options.rs:45:25
|
LL | global_asm!("", options(preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected one of `)`, `att_syntax`, or `raw`
is now
error: the `preserves_flags` option cannot be used with `global_asm!`
--> $DIR/bad-options.rs:45:25
|
LL | global_asm!("", options(preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the `preserves_flags` option is not meaningful for global-scoped inline assembly
mirroring the phrasing of the [reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/inline-assembly.html#options).
This is also a bit of a refactor for a future `naked_asm!` macro (for use in `#[naked]` functions). Currently this sort of error can come up when switching from inline to global asm, or when a user just isn't that experienced with assembly. With `naked_asm!` added to the mix hitting this error is more likely.
…tolnay update `rust.channel` default value documentation self-explanatory Resolves rust-lang#128258 r? dtolnay
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=5 |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 27, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 3 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#128006 (Make `missing_fragment_specifier` an error in edition 2024) - rust-lang#128207 (improve error message when `global_asm!` uses `asm!` options) - rust-lang#128266 (update `rust.channel` default value documentation) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
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:
missing_fragment_specifieran error in edition 2024 #128006 (Makemissing_fragment_specifieran error in edition 2024)global_asm!usesasm!options #128207 (improve error message whenglobal_asm!usesasm!options)rust.channeldefault value documentation #128266 (updaterust.channeldefault value documentation)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup