Skip to content

/rust

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

Remove the old FOLLOW checking (aka `check_matcher_old`). #33982

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 8, 2016

Conversation

Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@pnkfelix pnkfelix

Labels
T-lang relnotes
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
7 participants
@LeoTestard @rust-highfive @pnkfelix @nikomatsakis @durka @bors @brson
@LeoTestard
Copy link
Contributor

LeoTestard commented May 31, 2016

It was supposed to be removed at the next release cycle but is still in the tree since like 6 months.
Potential breaking change, since some cases (such as #25658) will change from a warning to an error. But the warning stating that it will be a hard error in the next release has been there for 6 months now.
I think it's safe to break this code. ^_^

@rust-highfive rust-highfive assigned pnkfelix May 31, 2016

@rust-highfive

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator

rust-highfive commented May 31, 2016

r? @pnkfelix

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@pnkfelix pnkfelix added the T-lang label May 31, 2016

@pnkfelix

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented May 31, 2016

triage: nominated

(Nominating since I just want to make sure lang team is aware of the long awaited breaking change here, and also because I'm not 100% sure about the protocol here.)

@pnkfelix pnkfelix added the I-nominated label May 31, 2016

@LeoTestard LeoTestard force-pushed the LeoTestard:remove-check-matcher-old branch 2 times, most recently from b44bfa2 to 9e35b01 Jun 1, 2016

@nikomatsakis nikomatsakis removed the I-nominated label Jun 2, 2016

@nikomatsakis

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

nikomatsakis commented Jun 2, 2016

Conclusion from lang-team meeting: let's follow a foreshortened protocol here, but at least post a warning to internals.
@pnkfelix

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Jun 2, 2016 •
edited

posted warning to internals: link
@pnkfelix

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Jun 2, 2016

cc #30450
@durka

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

durka commented Jun 4, 2016

@LeoTestard does this build locally for you? I'm trying to hack on it and getting errors in libcore that suggests macros are silently failing to expand.
src/libsyntax/ext/tt/macro_rules.rs Outdated
check_matcher_core(cx, &first_sets, matcher, &empty_suffix, on_fail);
let err = cx.parse_sess.span_diagnostic.err_count();
check_matcher_core(cx, &first_sets, matcher, &empty_suffix);
err < cx.parse_sess.span_diagnostic.err_count()

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
@durka

durka Jun 4, 2016

Contributor

This check is backwards! < should be ==. 😆

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
@LeoTestard

LeoTestard Jun 4, 2016

Author Contributor

Ooooh right, I'm so stupid. ><
@LeoTestard

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor Author

LeoTestard commented Jun 4, 2016 •
edited

@durka I must admit that I haven't tested it and I was waiting for Travis to do it. The error you pointed out is probably the cause. The fact that it fails silently is legit because the errors are supposed to be reported directly by check_matcher_core, when present. But the return value of false will just cause the macro to be compiled in a dummy macro that expands to nothing to avoid duplicate errors. I will fix that soon. :)

@LeoTestard LeoTestard force-pushed the LeoTestard:remove-check-matcher-old branch from 9e35b01 to 5425386 Jun 4, 2016

@durka

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

durka commented Jun 4, 2016 •
edited

You need to also replace all instances of WARN with ERROR in src/test/compile-fail/macro-follow.rs. (edit: ...and also in issue-30715.rs)
@durka

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

durka commented Jun 4, 2016

Actually the macro in issue-30715.rs is no longer legal with these changes. Maybe we should just delete that test?

@LeoTestard LeoTestard force-pushed the LeoTestard:remove-check-matcher-old branch from 5425386 to 4dab8ae Jun 6, 2016

@LeoTestard

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor Author

LeoTestard commented Jun 6, 2016

r? @pnkfelix
@pnkfelix

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Jun 7, 2016

@bors r+
@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 7, 2016

📌 Commit 4dab8ae has been approved by pnkfelix
@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 8, 2016

⌛️ Testing commit 4dab8ae with merge 371bf0e...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 8, 2016

@bors
Auto merge of #33982 - LeoTestard:remove-check-matcher-old, r=pnkfelix 
Remove the old FOLLOW checking (aka `check_matcher_old`).

It was supposed to be removed at the next release cycle but is still in the tree since like 6 months.
Potential breaking change, since some cases (such as #25658) will change from a warning to an error. But the warning stating that it will be a hard error in the next release has been there for 6 months now.
I think it's safe to break this code. ^_^
371bf0e
@bors

@bors bors merged commit 4dab8ae into rust-lang:master Jun 8, 2016
2 checks passed

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
homu Test successful
Details

@brson brson added the relnotes label Jun 23, 2016

@brson

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Jun 23, 2016

Looks like this broke a number of crates https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/regression-report-stable-2016-05-24-vs-nightly-2016-06-10/3594/6

@pnkfelix pnkfelix referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2018

Closed

Tracking issue for RFC amendment #1384 #30450

2 of 2 tasks complete
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.