Improve spans on evaluated cfg_attrs.
#128133
Merged
Conversation
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
When converting something like `#![cfg_attr(cond, attr)]` into `#![attr]`, we currently duplicate the `#` token and the `!` token. But weirdly, there is also this comment: // We don't really have a good span to use for the synthesized `[]` // in `#[attr]`, so just use the span of the `#` token. Maybe that comment used to be true? But now it is false: we can duplicate the existing delimiters (and their spans and spacing), much like we do for the `#` and `!`. This commit does that, thus removing the incorrect comment, and improving the spans on `Group`s in a few proc-macro tests.
|
rustbot has assigned @petrochenkov. Use |
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#126152 (size_of_val_raw: for length 0 this is safe to call) - rust-lang#127252 (Add edge-case examples to `{count,leading,trailing}_{ones,zeros}` methods) - rust-lang#127374 (Tweak "wrong # of generics" suggestions) - rust-lang#127457 (Make tidy fast without compromising case alternation) - rust-lang#127480 (Fix build failure on vxworks rust-lang#127084 ) - rust-lang#127733 (Replace some `mem::forget`'s with `ManuallyDrop`) - rust-lang#128120 (Gate `AsyncFn*` under `async_closure` feature) - rust-lang#128131 (Import `c_void` rather than using the full path) - rust-lang#128133 (Improve spans on evaluated `cfg_attr`s.) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#128133 - nnethercote:fix-cfg_attr-spans, r=petrochenkov Improve spans on evaluated `cfg_attr`s. When converting something like `#![cfg_attr(cond, attr)]` into `#![attr]`, we currently duplicate the `#` token and the `!` token. But weirdly, there is also this comment: // We don't really have a good span to use for the synthesized `[]` // in `#[attr]`, so just use the span of the `#` token. Maybe that comment used to be true? But now it is false: we can duplicate the existing delimiters (and their spans and spacing), much like we do for the `#` and `!`. This commit does that, thus removing the incorrect comment, and improving the spans on `Group`s in a few proc-macro tests. `@petrochenkov`
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.
When converting something like
#![cfg_attr(cond, attr)]into#![attr], we currently duplicate the#token and the!token. But weirdly, there is also this comment:// We don't really have a good span to use for the synthesized
[]// in
#[attr], so just use the span of the#token.Maybe that comment used to be true? But now it is false: we can duplicate the existing delimiters (and their spans and spacing), much like we do for the
#and!.This commit does that, thus removing the incorrect comment, and improving the spans on
Groups in a few proc-macro tests.@petrochenkov