Skip to content
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

Improve diagnostics for wrongly ordered keywords in function declaration #87235

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 9, 2021

Conversation

poliorcetics
Copy link
Contributor

@poliorcetics poliorcetics commented Jul 17, 2021

Fix #87217

@rustbot label A-diagnostics T-compiler

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @nagisa

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 17, 2021
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@nagisa nagisa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed the code changes as they are right now. The test failures seem to indicate there are a fair number of effects on other diagnostics so those need to be reviewed still (which I can do after the ui test outputs are blessed)

compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/item.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/item.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/item.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/item.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/item.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/item.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@poliorcetics poliorcetics force-pushed the issue-87217-fn-quali-order branch 2 times, most recently from c7793a6 to 99097d4 Compare July 18, 2021 15:39
@poliorcetics
Copy link
Contributor Author

I reverted the changes to check_fn_front_matter for now to make it easier to check what tests where affected by the actual parsing.

I would still like to change check_fn_front_matter and I have left two tests that are currently failing about this. I can remove them to allow merging this PR and do it in a separate one if needed.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@nagisa nagisa added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 23, 2021
@poliorcetics
Copy link
Contributor Author

I tried to write a more precise check_fn_front_matter function but so many diagnostics are dependent on the current one I stopped trying. This means extern "ABI" keyword fn will still propose { after "ABI" instead of hinting at changing keyword position but apart from that, everything should work.

@poliorcetics
Copy link
Contributor Author

poliorcetics commented Jul 24, 2021

@rustbot label -S-waiting-on-author +S-waiting-on-review

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jul 24, 2021
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@poliorcetics
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't understand how my changes could have broken those tests. I can't run them locally too, they're always ignored and I see no way to force run them.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 24, 2021

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #87434) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

// Qualifier keywords ordering check

// This will allow the machine fix to directly place the keyword in the correct place
let current_qual_sp = if self.check_keyword(kw::Const) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If I'm reading this correctly, we will trigger the diagnostic here below for code that has duplicate keywords, such as e.g. in

const async const fn

and I believe that the machine applicable suggestion will suggest a const const async fn which is invalid.

It may not be critical to fix this now in this PR, but could you please at least add a test for that case?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You are right, I will add a test for it.

pub pub fn test() {} already behaves like that and has a MachineApplicable fix, I think it is because it is expected to sometimes misplace keywords but repeating them is not something that happens often so it should be okay ? I can try to fix it in this PR or open another issue+PR combo, I don't know what's best here

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't believe this must be fixed in this PR, but I would consider that a bug.

@nagisa
Copy link
Member

nagisa commented Aug 1, 2021

Please squash the commits a little so that its 1 or 2 commits.

After this commit, `unsafe async fn ...` now suggests the `async unsafe` fix
instead of misunderstanding the issue.

This is not perfect for repeated keywords (`const async const`) and for
keywords that are misplaced after `extern "some abi"` because of the way
`check_fn_font_matter` works, but changing it breaks so many tests and
diagnostics it has been judged too high a cost for this PR.
@rustbot rustbot added A-diagnostics Area: Messages for errors, warnings, and lints T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Aug 2, 2021
@nagisa
Copy link
Member

nagisa commented Aug 8, 2021

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 8, 2021

📌 Commit 690cbb7 has been approved by nagisa

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Aug 8, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 8, 2021

⌛ Testing commit 690cbb7 with merge 74a11c6...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 9, 2021

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nagisa
Pushing 74a11c6 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Aug 9, 2021
@bors bors merged commit 74a11c6 into rust-lang:master Aug 9, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.56.0 milestone Aug 9, 2021
@poliorcetics poliorcetics deleted the issue-87217-fn-quali-order branch August 9, 2021 16:12
tgross35 added a commit to tgross35/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2024
…compiler-errors

Improve `extern "<abi>" unsafe fn()` error message

These errors were already reported in rust-lang#87217, and fixed by rust-lang#87235 but missed the case of an explicit ABI.

This PR does not cover multiple keywords like `extern "C" pub const unsafe fn()`, but I don't know what a good way to cover this  would be. It also seems rarer than `extern "C" unsafe` which I saw happen a few times in workshops.
tgross35 added a commit to tgross35/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2024
…compiler-errors

Improve `extern "<abi>" unsafe fn()` error message

These errors were already reported in rust-lang#87217, and fixed by rust-lang#87235 but missed the case of an explicit ABI.

This PR does not cover multiple keywords like `extern "C" pub const unsafe fn()`, but I don't know what a good way to cover this  would be. It also seems rarer than `extern "C" unsafe` which I saw happen a few times in workshops.
tgross35 added a commit to tgross35/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 26, 2024
…compiler-errors

Improve `extern "<abi>" unsafe fn()` error message

These errors were already reported in rust-lang#87217, and fixed by rust-lang#87235 but missed the case of an explicit ABI.

This PR does not cover multiple keywords like `extern "C" pub const unsafe fn()`, but I don't know what a good way to cover this  would be. It also seems rarer than `extern "C" unsafe` which I saw happen a few times in workshops.
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 27, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#128229 - tdittr:unsafe-extern-abi-error, r=compiler-errors

Improve `extern "<abi>" unsafe fn()` error message

These errors were already reported in rust-lang#87217, and fixed by rust-lang#87235 but missed the case of an explicit ABI.

This PR does not cover multiple keywords like `extern "C" pub const unsafe fn()`, but I don't know what a good way to cover this  would be. It also seems rarer than `extern "C" unsafe` which I saw happen a few times in workshops.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-diagnostics Area: Messages for errors, warnings, and lints merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Confusing diagnostic for inversion of extern "..." and unsafe in function decl
6 participants