rustc: Tweak expansion of #[proc_macro] for 2018#52326
Merged
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom Jul 14, 2018
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
r? @aturon (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
alexcrichton
force-pushed
the
tweak-proc-macro-expand
branch
from
a06f8a7 to
a67ba36
Compare
Member
Author
|
r? @nrc cc @petrochenkov (not directly related to macros 1.2, but you probably want to be aware of this) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can't we always generate crate::proc_macro_fn regardless of editions and enabled features?
The whole registrar code is under allow_internal_unstable: true span anyway.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought so! I originally did that but it generated feature errors :(
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's because the path spans are set to cd.span/ca.span/cm.span and not span.
You can use cd.span.with_ctxt(span.ctxt()) to keep the sane locations, but apply stability hygiene.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Worked like a charm!
The syntactical expansion of `#[proc_macro]` and related attributes currently contains absolute paths which conflicts with a lint for the 2018 edition, causing issues like rust-lang#52214. This commit puts a band-aid on the issue by ensuring that procedural macros can also migrate to the 2018 edition for now by tweaking the expansion based on what features are activated. A more long-term solution would probably tweak the edition hygiene of spans, but this should do the trick for now. Closes rust-lang#52214
alexcrichton
force-pushed
the
tweak-proc-macro-expand
branch
from
a67ba36 to
94c9ea4
Compare
Contributor
|
@bors r+ |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit 94c9ea4 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
|
⌛ Testing commit 94c9ea4 with merge 6241dcf5557f9f4d7481205581d4500d11e29230... |
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
Member
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 14, 2018
…henkov rustc: Tweak expansion of #[proc_macro] for 2018 The syntactical expansion of `#[proc_macro]` and related attributes currently contains absolute paths which conflicts with a lint for the 2018 edition, causing issues like #52214. This commit puts a band-aid on the issue by ensuring that procedural macros can also migrate to the 2018 edition for now by tweaking the expansion based on what features are activated. A more long-term solution would probably tweak the edition hygiene of spans, but this should do the trick for now. Closes #52214
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
Contributor
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
1 similar comment
Contributor
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Member
|
@bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
|
⌛ Testing commit 94c9ea4 with merge 253a01c41e1a51b368699199a158bb9eb4dd70c6... |
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
Contributor
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
1 similar comment
Contributor
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Member
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 14, 2018
…henkov rustc: Tweak expansion of #[proc_macro] for 2018 The syntactical expansion of `#[proc_macro]` and related attributes currently contains absolute paths which conflicts with a lint for the 2018 edition, causing issues like #52214. This commit puts a band-aid on the issue by ensuring that procedural macros can also migrate to the 2018 edition for now by tweaking the expansion based on what features are activated. A more long-term solution would probably tweak the edition hygiene of spans, but this should do the trick for now. Closes #52214
Collaborator
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 participants
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.
The syntactical expansion of
#[proc_macro]and related attributes currentlycontains absolute paths which conflicts with a lint for the 2018 edition,
causing issues like #52214. This commit puts a band-aid on the issue by ensuring
that procedural macros can also migrate to the 2018 edition for now by tweaking
the expansion based on what features are activated. A more long-term solution
would probably tweak the edition hygiene of spans, but this should do the trick
for now.
Closes #52214