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

macros: improve Span's expansion information #40597

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Mar 30, 2017

Conversation

jseyfried
Copy link
Contributor

@jseyfried jseyfried commented Mar 17, 2017

This PR improves Span's expansion information. More specifically:

r? @nrc

@jseyfried
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc @eddyb
cc #38356 #39412

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ macro_rules! indirect_line { () => ( line!() ) }

pub fn main() {
assert_eq!(line!(), 24);
assert_eq!(column!(), 4);
assert_eq!(column!(), 15);
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

c.f. #40649; technically a [breaking-change]

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 19, 2017

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #40346) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@jseyfried jseyfried force-pushed the improve_span_expn_info branch 2 times, most recently from e7e0177 to 72a3d9e Compare March 20, 2017 04:29
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 21, 2017

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #40693) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@jseyfried jseyfried force-pushed the improve_span_expn_info branch from 72a3d9e to 061faa7 Compare March 21, 2017 21:50
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 22, 2017

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #40043) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@jseyfried jseyfried force-pushed the improve_span_expn_info branch from 061faa7 to a30cfc0 Compare March 22, 2017 05:06
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 23, 2017

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #40752) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Copy link
Member

@nrc nrc left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

r=me, assuming losing the command line span thing is fine.

This seems a good step in the right direction. I worry a bit that to is still too easy to create malformed spans, but it is def. better than mk_sp.

// Generic span to be used for code originating from the command line
pub const COMMAND_LINE_SP: Span = Span { lo: BytePos(0),
hi: BytePos(0),
expn_id: COMMAND_LINE_EXPN };
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What do we do now for code from the command line?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jseyfried jseyfried Mar 24, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same as before -- DUMMY_SP. The only place COMMAND_LINE_SP was used was here, which only happens when naming a legacy plugin crate through a debugging command line option.

@jseyfried jseyfried force-pushed the improve_span_expn_info branch 2 times, most recently from 81adb79 to 8c49446 Compare March 25, 2017 01:51
@jseyfried
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors r=nrc

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 25, 2017

📌 Commit 8c49446 has been approved by nrc

@jseyfried jseyfried force-pushed the improve_span_expn_info branch 5 times, most recently from 3618a0b to 8ba347e Compare March 30, 2017 01:17
@jseyfried
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors r=nrc

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 30, 2017

📌 Commit 8ba347e has been approved by nrc

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 30, 2017

⌛ Testing commit 8ba347e with merge 2731d4d...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 30, 2017

💔 Test failed - status-appveyor

@jseyfried jseyfried force-pushed the improve_span_expn_info branch from 8ba347e to cfad0fe Compare March 30, 2017 05:41
@jseyfried jseyfried force-pushed the improve_span_expn_info branch from cfad0fe to 8fde04b Compare March 30, 2017 06:48
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 30, 2017

⌛ Testing commit 8fde04b with merge fe15119...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 30, 2017
macros: improve `Span`'s expansion information

This PR improves `Span`'s expansion information. More specifically:
 - It refactors AST node span construction to preserve expansion information.
   - Today, we only use the underlying tokens' `BytePos`s, throwing away the `ExpnId`s.
   - This improves the accuracy of AST nodes' expansion information, fixing #30506.
 - It refactors `span.expn_id: ExpnId` to `span.ctxt: SyntaxContext` and removes `ExpnId`.
   - This gives all tokens as much hygiene information as `Ident`s.
   - This is groundwork for procedural macros 2.0 `TokenStream` API.
   - This is also groundwork for declarative macros 2.0, which will need this hygiene information for some non-`Ident` tokens.
 - It simplifies processing of spans' expansion information throughout the compiler.
 - It fixes #40649.
 - It fixes #39450 and fixes part of #23480.

r? @nrc
@jseyfried
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors r=nrc

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 30, 2017

📌 Commit 8fde04b has been approved by nrc

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 30, 2017

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: jseyfried
Pushing fe15119 to master...

@SergioBenitez
Copy link
Contributor

I'm seeing the following, which may be related to this:

warning: {warning message from a syntax extension}
--> /a/nice/big/file/path/here.rs:10:21
 |
 | and so on...
 |
 = note: this error originates in a macro outside of the current crate

The issue is that the "note:` refers to the warning as an "error". It should say: "this warning originates from a macro outside of the current crate".

@jseyfried
Copy link
Contributor Author

@sergio This should be fixed by #40939 (as discussed on IRC).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
7 participants