Add an attribute that makes the spans from a macro edition 2021, and fix pin on edition 2024 with it#138717
Merged
bors merged 4 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom Mar 21, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
|
r? @Noratrieb rustbot has assigned @Noratrieb. Use |
rustbot
added
A-attributes
jdonszelmann
changed the title
This was referenced Mar 19, 2025
WaffleLapkin
approved these changes
Mar 19, 2025
Member
|
r? WaffleLapkin |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Contributor
I need to think. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Contributor
|
One alternative not requiring compiler hacks is to put it into a separate 2021 edition crate and then reexport it from libcore, but that may (or may not) cause some larger build/infrastructure issues. |
Member
|
Probably will. And no one wants to spend a day debugging the CI issues when it does. And speaking from my POV as libs reviewer, I strongly prefer core's current dependency graph to it having any dependencies at all. |
Member
It really should be. If this isn't temporary, it means that Rust 2024 isn't as expressive as Rust 2021. That would be a problem! Opened #138718 to track that. |
Member
Definitely considered that. But adding a dependency to core isn't trivial. And unfortunately we don't have Luckily this attribute is very simple to implement, and thus simple to remove again. (It just sets the SyntaxExtension::edition field.) |
Contributor
|
Is it reasonable to try running crater with the identity() fix to see how much code breaks? Broken code probably would need to look like |
Member
Considering that pin!() is used often in aync application code (not just libraries), I think crater might not be very representative, as there might be a lot of uses in code that is not on (public) github or crates.io. |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 28, 2025
Put pin!() tests in the right file. In rust-lang#138717, these tests were put in `tests/pin.rs`, but they should go in `tests/pin_macro.rs`. r? `@jdonszelmann`
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 29, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#139052 - m-ou-se:pin-macro-tests, r=joboet Put pin!() tests in the right file. In rust-lang#138717, these tests were put in `tests/pin.rs`, but they should go in `tests/pin_macro.rs`. r? `@jdonszelmann`
m-ou-se
added
beta-nominated
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 29, 2025
Add more tests for pin!(). This adds the tests suggested by `@danielhenrymantilla` in this comment: rust-lang#138717 (comment) by
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 29, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#139097 - m-ou-se:pin-tests, r=WaffleLapkin Add more tests for pin!(). This adds the tests suggested by `@danielhenrymantilla` in this comment: rust-lang#138717 (comment) by
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to model-checking/verify-rust-std
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 2, 2025
…pkin Add an attribute that makes the spans from a macro edition 2021, and fix pin on edition 2024 with it Fixes a regression, see issue below. This is a temporary fix, super let is the real solution. Closes rust-lang#138596
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to model-checking/verify-rust-std
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 2, 2025
Put pin!() tests in the right file. In rust-lang#138717, these tests were put in `tests/pin.rs`, but they should go in `tests/pin_macro.rs`. r? `@jdonszelmann`
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to model-checking/verify-rust-std
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 2, 2025
Add more tests for pin!(). This adds the tests suggested by `@danielhenrymantilla` in this comment: rust-lang#138717 (comment) by
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 17, 2025
Implement `pin!()` using `super let` Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076 This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`. This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596. It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field. While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable. It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 18, 2025
Implement `pin!()` using `super let` Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076 This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`. This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596. It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field. While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable. It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 18, 2025
Implement `pin!()` using `super let` Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076 This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`. This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596. It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field. While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable. It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 18, 2025
Implement `pin!()` using `super let` Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076 This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`. This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596. It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field. While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable. It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 18, 2025
Implement `pin!()` using `super let` Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076 This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`. This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596. It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field. While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable. It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2025
Implement `pin!()` using `super let` Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076 This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`. This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596. It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field. While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable. It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2025
Implement `pin!()` using `super let` Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang/rust#139076 This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`. This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang/rust#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang/rust#138596. It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field. While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable. It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang/rust#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/miri
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 20, 2025
Implement `pin!()` using `super let` Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang/rust#139076 This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`. This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang/rust#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang/rust#138596. It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field. While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable. It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang/rust#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
ChrisDenton
added a commit
to ChrisDenton/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 20, 2025
…Urgau Remove (now unused) #[rustc_macro_edition_2021] attribute Now that rust-lang#139114 has been merged, we no longer need the temporary hack (`#[rustc_macro_edition_2021]`) that we introduced in rust-lang#138717. Time to remove it.
ChrisDenton
added a commit
to ChrisDenton/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 20, 2025
…Urgau Remove (now unused) #[rustc_macro_edition_2021] attribute Now that rust-lang#139114 has been merged, we no longer need the temporary hack (`#[rustc_macro_edition_2021]`) that we introduced in rust-lang#138717. Time to remove it.
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 20, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#140067 - m-ou-se:remove-macro-2021-hack, r=Urgau Remove (now unused) #[rustc_macro_edition_2021] attribute Now that rust-lang#139114 has been merged, we no longer need the temporary hack (`#[rustc_macro_edition_2021]`) that we introduced in rust-lang#138717. Time to remove it.
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to model-checking/verify-rust-std
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2025
Implement `pin!()` using `super let` Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076 This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`. This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596. It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field. While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable. It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
lnicola
pushed a commit
to lnicola/rust-analyzer
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 28, 2025
Implement `pin!()` using `super let` Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang/rust#139076 This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`. This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang/rust#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang/rust#138596. It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field. While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable. It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang/rust#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.
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
13 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.
Fixes a regression, see issue below. This is a temporary fix, super let is the real solution.
Closes #138596