Fix unused_parens triggers on macro by example code
#66983
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
r? @estebank (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
tesuji
reviewed
Dec 3, 2019
Co-Authored-By: lzutao <[email protected]>
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Merged
estebank
reviewed
Dec 11, 2019
|
Based on the discussion in #66295, r=me once my nitpick is addressed or answered. |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit ab3f4fd has been approved by |
JohnTitor
added a commit
to JohnTitor/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2019
…bank Fix `unused_parens` triggers on macro by example code Fix rust-lang#66295 Unfortunately this does also break [an existing test](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4787e97475de6be9487e3d9255a9c2d3c0bf9252/src/test/ui/lint/issue-47775-nested-macro-unnecessary-parens-arg.rs#L22). I'm not sure how to handle that, because that seems to be quite similar to the allowed cases If this gets accepted it would be great to backport this fix to beta.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2019
Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #62514 (Clarify `Box<T>` representation and its use in FFI) - #66983 (Fix `unused_parens` triggers on macro by example code) - #67215 (Fix `-Z print-type-sizes`'s handling of zero-sized fields.) - #67230 (Remove irelevant comment on `register_dtor`) - #67236 (resolve: Always resolve visibilities on impl items) - #67237 (Some small readability improvements) - #67238 (Small std::borrow::Cow improvements) - #67239 (Make TinyList::remove iterate instead of recurse) Failed merges: r? @ghost
|
Accepted for backport in today's design meeting |
Merged
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 14, 2019
[beta] Beta backports Backporting the following pull requests: * resolve: Always resolve visibilities on impl items #67236 * resolve: Resolve visibilities on fields with non-builtin attributes #67106 * E0023: handle expected != tuple pattern type #67044 * Fix `unused_parens` triggers on macro by example code #66983 * Fix some issues with attributes on unnamed fields #66669 * Ensure that we get a hard error on generic ZST constants if their bodies #67134 (via #67297) Some of these conflicted on merge, I resolved where possible, sometimes by cherry-picking a commit or two more from the relevant PRs. Since those changes are necessary though for backport to proceed (otherwise not even std/core compile), seems fine -- they're fairly minor cleanups anyway.
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.
Fix #66295
Unfortunately this does also break an existing test. I'm not sure how to handle that, because that seems to be quite similar to the allowed cases
If this gets accepted it would be great to backport this fix to beta.