Reject a LHS formed of a single sequence TT during macro_rules! checking.
#33841
Conversation
|
@LeoTestard does this need to wait for #33713 to land before it can land? Or are they independent? |
|
Ah, good point, they are independent but I'm afraid it will break it and require rebase. Let's wait then. |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #33713) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
LeoTestard
force-pushed
the
macro-sequence-lhs
branch
7 times, most recently
from
b14e484
to
c589685
Compare
…cking. This was already rejected during expansion. Encountering malformed LHS or RHS during expansion is now considered a bug.
LeoTestard
force-pushed
the
macro-sequence-lhs
branch
from
c589685
to
864b3c8
Compare
|
I removed a test because the issue it was introduced for (#21350) involves code that seem to rely on the feature that this PR is removing. Thing is that the macro expander doesn't accept macros with this kind of LHS. I don't know why this issue was opened, maybe it was accepted by the expander at the time? Another possibility is of course to fix the test to use parens, but I feel like that would be a completely different test (and actually, there are others test that do the same). Thoughts @cmr? |
|
@LeoTestard my interpretation is that we wanted to ensure we didn't ICE as a first priority So you might move the original text to this change might break crates in the wild (only ones that have macros with dead arms using the erroneous syntax I think) . So we might want to put it through a warning cycle? |
|
@pnkfelix I'm pretty sure it's already covered. |
|
@pnkfelix Up? r? |
|
@bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 864b3c8 has been approved by |
|
⌛ Testing commit 864b3c8 with merge 4561415... |
Reject a LHS formed of a single sequence TT during `macro_rules!` checking. This was already rejected during expansion. Encountering malformed LHS or RHS during expansion is now considered a bug. Follow up to #33689. r? @pnkfelix Note: this can break code that defines such macros but does not use them.
|
💔 Test failed - auto-win-gnu-32-opt-rustbuild |
|
@bors: retry On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:17 AM, bors notifications@github.com wrote:
|
|
💔 Test failed - auto-linux-64-cross-freebsd |
|
@bors: retry On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:55 PM, bors notifications@github.com wrote:
|
…kfelix Reject a LHS formed of a single sequence TT during `macro_rules!` checking. This was already rejected during expansion. Encountering malformed LHS or RHS during expansion is now considered a bug. Follow up to rust-lang#33689. r? @pnkfelix Note: this can break code that defines such macros but does not use them.
This was already rejected during expansion. Encountering malformed LHS or RHS during expansion is now considered a bug.
Follow up to #33689.
r? @pnkfelix
Note: this can break code that defines such macros but does not use them.