Extend proc_macro_back_compat lint to procedural-masquerade
#83168
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
We now lint on *any* use of `procedural-masquerade` crate. While this crate still exists, its main reverse dependency (`cssparser`) no longer depends on it. Any crates still depending off should stop doing so, as it only exists to support very old Rust versions. If a crate actually needs to support old versions of rustc via `procedural-masquerade`, then they'll just need to accept the warning until we remove it entirely (at the same time as the back-compat hack). The latest version of `procedural-masquerade` does not work with the latest rustc, but trying to check for the version seems like more trouble than it's worth. While working on this, I realized that the `proc-macro-hack` check was never actually doing anything. The corresponding enum variant in `proc-macro-hack` is named `Value` or `Nested` - it has never been called `Input`. Due to a strange Crater issue, the Crater run that tested adding this did *not* end up testing it - some of the crates that would have failed did not actually have their tests checked, making it seem as though the `proc-macro-hack` check was working. The Crater issue is being discussed at https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242791-t-infra/topic/Nearly.20identical.20Crater.20runs.20processed.20a.20crate.20differently/near/230406661 Despite the `proc-macro-hack` check not actually doing anything, we haven't gotten any reports from users about their build being broken. I went ahead and removed it entirely, since it's clear that no one is being affected by the `proc-macro-hack` regression in practice.
|
r? @estebank (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit d6a7c1d has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Dylan-DPC-zz
pushed a commit
to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 16, 2021
…e, r=petrochenkov Extend `proc_macro_back_compat` lint to `procedural-masquerade` We now lint on *any* use of `procedural-masquerade` crate. While this crate still exists, its main reverse dependency (`cssparser`) no longer depends on it. Any crates still depending off should stop doing so, as it only exists to support very old Rust versions. If a crate actually needs to support old versions of rustc via `procedural-masquerade`, then they'll just need to accept the warning until we remove it entirely (at the same time as the back-compat hack). The latest version of `procedural-masquerade` does not work with the latest rustc, but trying to check for the version seems like more trouble than it's worth. While working on this, I realized that the `proc-macro-hack` check was never actually doing anything. The corresponding enum variant in `proc-macro-hack` is named `Value` or `Nested` - it has never been called `Input`. Due to a strange Crater issue, the Crater run that tested adding this did *not* end up testing it - some of the crates that would have failed did not actually have their tests checked, making it seem as though the `proc-macro-hack` check was working. The Crater issue is being discussed at https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242791-t-infra/topic/Nearly.20identical.20Crater.20runs.20processed.20a.20crate.20differently/near/230406661 Despite the `proc-macro-hack` check not actually doing anything, we haven't gotten any reports from users about their build being broken. I went ahead and removed it entirely, since it's clear that no one is being affected by the `proc-macro-hack` regression in practice.
Dylan-DPC-zz
pushed a commit
to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2021
…e, r=petrochenkov Extend `proc_macro_back_compat` lint to `procedural-masquerade` We now lint on *any* use of `procedural-masquerade` crate. While this crate still exists, its main reverse dependency (`cssparser`) no longer depends on it. Any crates still depending off should stop doing so, as it only exists to support very old Rust versions. If a crate actually needs to support old versions of rustc via `procedural-masquerade`, then they'll just need to accept the warning until we remove it entirely (at the same time as the back-compat hack). The latest version of `procedural-masquerade` does not work with the latest rustc, but trying to check for the version seems like more trouble than it's worth. While working on this, I realized that the `proc-macro-hack` check was never actually doing anything. The corresponding enum variant in `proc-macro-hack` is named `Value` or `Nested` - it has never been called `Input`. Due to a strange Crater issue, the Crater run that tested adding this did *not* end up testing it - some of the crates that would have failed did not actually have their tests checked, making it seem as though the `proc-macro-hack` check was working. The Crater issue is being discussed at https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242791-t-infra/topic/Nearly.20identical.20Crater.20runs.20processed.20a.20crate.20differently/near/230406661 Despite the `proc-macro-hack` check not actually doing anything, we haven't gotten any reports from users about their build being broken. I went ahead and removed it entirely, since it's clear that no one is being affected by the `proc-macro-hack` regression in practice.
Dylan-DPC-zz
pushed a commit
to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2021
…e, r=petrochenkov Extend `proc_macro_back_compat` lint to `procedural-masquerade` We now lint on *any* use of `procedural-masquerade` crate. While this crate still exists, its main reverse dependency (`cssparser`) no longer depends on it. Any crates still depending off should stop doing so, as it only exists to support very old Rust versions. If a crate actually needs to support old versions of rustc via `procedural-masquerade`, then they'll just need to accept the warning until we remove it entirely (at the same time as the back-compat hack). The latest version of `procedural-masquerade` does work with the latest rustc, but trying to check for the version seems like more trouble than it's worth. While working on this, I realized that the `proc-macro-hack` check was never actually doing anything. The corresponding enum variant in `proc-macro-hack` is named `Value` or `Nested` - it has never been called `Input`. Due to a strange Crater issue, the Crater run that tested adding this did *not* end up testing it - some of the crates that would have failed did not actually have their tests checked, making it seem as though the `proc-macro-hack` check was working. The Crater issue is being discussed at https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242791-t-infra/topic/Nearly.20identical.20Crater.20runs.20processed.20a.20crate.20differently/near/230406661 Despite the `proc-macro-hack` check not actually doing anything, we haven't gotten any reports from users about their build being broken. I went ahead and removed it entirely, since it's clear that no one is being affected by the `proc-macro-hack` regression in practice.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2021
Rollup of 11 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#82191 (Vec::dedup_by optimization) - rust-lang#82270 (Emit error when trying to use assembler syntax directives in `asm!`) - rust-lang#82434 (Add more links between hash and btree collections) - rust-lang#83080 (Make source-based code coverage compatible with MIR inlining) - rust-lang#83168 (Extend `proc_macro_back_compat` lint to `procedural-masquerade`) - rust-lang#83192 (ci/docker: Add SDK/NDK level 21 to android docker for 32bit platforms) - rust-lang#83204 (Simplify C compilation for Fortanix-SGX target) - rust-lang#83216 (Allow registering tool lints with `register_tool`) - rust-lang#83223 (Display error details when a `mmap` call fails) - rust-lang#83228 (Don't show HTML diff if tidy isn't installed for rustdoc tests) - rust-lang#83231 (Switch riscvgc-unknown-none-elf use lp64d ABI) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
This was referenced Apr 20, 2021
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.
We now lint on any use of
procedural-masqueradecrate. While thiscrate still exists, its main reverse dependency (
cssparser) no longerdepends on it. Any crates still depending off should stop doing so, as
it only exists to support very old Rust versions.
If a crate actually needs to support old versions of rustc via
procedural-masquerade, then they'll just need to accept the warninguntil we remove it entirely (at the same time as the back-compat hack).
The latest version of
procedural-masqueradedoes work with thelatest rustc, but trying to check for the version seems like more
trouble than it's worth.
While working on this, I realized that the
proc-macro-hackcheck wasnever actually doing anything. The corresponding enum variant in
proc-macro-hackis namedValueorNested- it has never beencalled
Input. Due to a strange Crater issue, the Crater run thattested adding this did not end up testing it - some of the crates that
would have failed did not actually have their tests checked, making it
seem as though the
proc-macro-hackcheck was working.The Crater issue is being discussed at
https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242791-t-infra/topic/Nearly.20identical.20Crater.20runs.20processed.20a.20crate.20differently/near/230406661
Despite the
proc-macro-hackcheck not actually doing anything, wehaven't gotten any reports from users about their build being broken.
I went ahead and removed it entirely, since it's clear that no one is
being affected by the
proc-macro-hackregression in practice.