Remove the old FOLLOW checking (aka check_matcher_old).
#33982
Conversation
|
r? @pnkfelix (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
pnkfelix
added
the
T-lang
|
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.) |
LeoTestard
force-pushed
the
remove-check-matcher-old
branch
2 times, most recently
from
b44bfa2 to
9e35b01
Compare
|
Conclusion from lang-team meeting: let's follow a foreshortened protocol here, but at least post a warning to internals. |
|
posted warning to internals: link |
|
cc #30450 |
|
@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. |
| 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() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This check is backwards! < should be ==. 😆
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ooooh right, I'm so stupid. ><
|
@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 |
LeoTestard
force-pushed
the
remove-check-matcher-old
branch
from
9e35b01 to
5425386
Compare
|
You need to also replace all instances of |
|
Actually the macro in issue-30715.rs is no longer legal with these changes. Maybe we should just delete that test? |
LeoTestard
force-pushed
the
remove-check-matcher-old
branch
from
5425386 to
4dab8ae
Compare
|
r? @pnkfelix |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 4dab8ae has been approved by |
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. ^_^
brson
added
the
relnotes
|
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 |
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. ^_^