Make missing_fragment_specifier an unconditional error

This was attempted in [1] then reverted in [2] because of fallout.
Recently, this was made an edition-dependent error in [3].

Make missing fragment specifiers an unconditional error again.

[1]: #75516
[2]: #80210
[3]: #128006

Author: tgross35

compiler/rustc_expand/messages.ftl

@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ expand_meta_var_expr_unrecognized_var =
     variable `{$key}` is not recognized in meta-variable expression
 
 expand_missing_fragment_specifier = missing fragment specifier
-    .note = fragment specifiers must be specified in the 2024 edition
+    .note = fragment specifiers must be provided
     .suggestion_add_fragspec = try adding a specifier here
     .valid = {$valid}
 

compiler/rustc_expand/src/mbe/macro_check.rs

@@ -112,9 +112,8 @@ use rustc_ast::{DUMMY_NODE_ID, NodeId};
 use rustc_data_structures::fx::FxHashMap;
 use rustc_errors::MultiSpan;
 use rustc_lint_defs::BuiltinLintDiag;
-use rustc_session::lint::builtin::{META_VARIABLE_MISUSE, MISSING_FRAGMENT_SPECIFIER};
+use rustc_session::lint::builtin::META_VARIABLE_MISUSE;
 use rustc_session::parse::ParseSess;
-use rustc_span::edition::Edition;
 use rustc_span::{ErrorGuaranteed, MacroRulesNormalizedIdent, Span, kw};
 use smallvec::SmallVec;
 
@@ -266,23 +265,11 @@ fn check_binders(
         // Similarly, this can only happen when checking a toplevel macro.
         TokenTree::MetaVarDecl(span, name, kind) => {
             if kind.is_none() && node_id != DUMMY_NODE_ID {
-                // FIXME: Report this as a hard error eventually and remove equivalent errors from
-                // `parse_tt_inner` and `nameize`. Until then the error may be reported twice, once
-                // as a hard error and then once as a buffered lint.
-                if span.edition() >= Edition::Edition2024 {
-                    psess.dcx().emit_err(errors::MissingFragmentSpecifier {
-                        span,
-                        add_span: span.shrink_to_hi(),
-                        valid: VALID_FRAGMENT_NAMES_MSG,
-                    });
-                } else {
-                    psess.buffer_lint(
-                        MISSING_FRAGMENT_SPECIFIER,
-                        span,
-                        node_id,
-                        BuiltinLintDiag::MissingFragmentSpecifier,
-                    );
-                }
+                psess.dcx().emit_err(errors::MissingFragmentSpecifier {
+                    span,
+                    add_span: span.shrink_to_hi(),
+                    valid: VALID_FRAGMENT_NAMES_MSG,
+                });
             }
             if !macros.is_empty() {
                 psess.dcx().span_bug(span, "unexpected MetaVarDecl in nested lhs");

compiler/rustc_lint/messages.ftl

@@ -533,8 +533,6 @@ lint_mismatched_lifetime_syntaxes_suggestion_implicit =
 lint_mismatched_lifetime_syntaxes_suggestion_mixed =
     one option is to remove the lifetime for references and use the anonymous lifetime for paths
 
-lint_missing_fragment_specifier = missing fragment specifier
-
 lint_missing_unsafe_on_extern = extern blocks should be unsafe
     .suggestion = needs `unsafe` before the extern keyword
 

compiler/rustc_lint/src/early/diagnostics.rs

@@ -432,9 +432,6 @@ pub fn decorate_builtin_lint(
         BuiltinLintDiag::CfgAttrNoAttributes => {
             lints::CfgAttrNoAttributes.decorate_lint(diag);
         }
-        BuiltinLintDiag::MissingFragmentSpecifier => {
-            lints::MissingFragmentSpecifier.decorate_lint(diag);
-        }
         BuiltinLintDiag::MetaVariableStillRepeating(name) => {
             lints::MetaVariableStillRepeating { name }.decorate_lint(diag);
         }

compiler/rustc_lint/src/lib.rs

@@ -619,6 +619,11 @@ fn register_builtins(store: &mut LintStore) {
         "converted into hard error, \
          see <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116558> for more information",
     );
+    store.register_removed(
+        "missing_fragment_specifier",
+        "converted into hard error, \
+         see <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40107> for more information",
+    );
 }
 
 fn register_internals(store: &mut LintStore) {

compiler/rustc_lint/src/lints.rs

@@ -2616,10 +2616,6 @@ pub(crate) struct DuplicateMacroAttribute;
 #[diag(lint_cfg_attr_no_attributes)]
 pub(crate) struct CfgAttrNoAttributes;
 
-#[derive(LintDiagnostic)]
-#[diag(lint_missing_fragment_specifier)]
-pub(crate) struct MissingFragmentSpecifier;
-
 #[derive(LintDiagnostic)]
 #[diag(lint_metavariable_still_repeating)]
 pub(crate) struct MetaVariableStillRepeating {

compiler/rustc_lint_defs/src/builtin.rs

@@ -65,7 +65,6 @@ declare_lint_pass! {
         MACRO_USE_EXTERN_CRATE,
         META_VARIABLE_MISUSE,
         MISSING_ABI,
-        MISSING_FRAGMENT_SPECIFIER,
         MISSING_UNSAFE_ON_EXTERN,
         MUST_NOT_SUSPEND,
         NAMED_ARGUMENTS_USED_POSITIONALLY,
@@ -1417,51 +1416,6 @@ declare_lint! {
     };
 }
 
-declare_lint! {
-    /// The `missing_fragment_specifier` lint is issued when an unused pattern in a
-    /// `macro_rules!` macro definition has a meta-variable (e.g. `$e`) that is not
-    /// followed by a fragment specifier (e.g. `:expr`).
-    ///
-    /// This warning can always be fixed by removing the unused pattern in the
-    /// `macro_rules!` macro definition.
-    ///
-    /// ### Example
-    ///
-    /// ```rust,compile_fail,edition2021
-    /// macro_rules! foo {
-    ///    () => {};
-    ///    ($name) => { };
-    /// }
-    ///
-    /// fn main() {
-    ///    foo!();
-    /// }
-    /// ```
-    ///
-    /// {{produces}}
-    ///
-    /// ### Explanation
-    ///
-    /// To fix this, remove the unused pattern from the `macro_rules!` macro definition:
-    ///
-    /// ```rust
-    /// macro_rules! foo {
-    ///     () => {};
-    /// }
-    /// fn main() {
-    ///     foo!();
-    /// }
-    /// ```
-    pub MISSING_FRAGMENT_SPECIFIER,
-    Deny,
-    "detects missing fragment specifiers in unused `macro_rules!` patterns",
-    @future_incompatible = FutureIncompatibleInfo {
-        reason: FutureIncompatibilityReason::FutureReleaseError,
-        reference: "issue #40107 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40107>",
-        report_in_deps: true,
-    };
-}
-
 declare_lint! {
     /// The `late_bound_lifetime_arguments` lint detects generic lifetime
     /// arguments in path segments with late bound lifetime parameters.

compiler/rustc_lint_defs/src/lib.rs

@@ -778,7 +778,6 @@ pub enum BuiltinLintDiag {
     UnnameableTestItems,
     DuplicateMacroAttribute,
     CfgAttrNoAttributes,
-    MissingFragmentSpecifier,
     MetaVariableStillRepeating(MacroRulesNormalizedIdent),
     MetaVariableWrongOperator,
     DuplicateMatcherBinding,

tests/ui/lint/expansion-time.rs

@@ -5,10 +5,6 @@ macro_rules! foo {
     ( $($i:ident)* ) => { $($i)+ }; //~ WARN meta-variable repeats with different Kleene operator
 }
 
-#[warn(missing_fragment_specifier)]
-macro_rules! m { ($i) => {} } //~ WARN missing fragment specifier
-                              //~| WARN this was previously accepted
-
 #[deprecated = "reason"]
 macro_rules! deprecated {
     () => {}

tests/ui/lint/expansion-time.stderr

@@ -12,46 +12,17 @@ note: the lint level is defined here
 LL | #[warn(meta_variable_misuse)]
    |        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
-warning: missing fragment specifier
-  --> $DIR/expansion-time.rs:9:19
-   |
-LL | macro_rules! m { ($i) => {} }
-   |                   ^^
-   |
-   = warning: this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out; it will become a hard error in a future release!
-   = note: for more information, see issue #40107 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40107>
-note: the lint level is defined here
-  --> $DIR/expansion-time.rs:8:8
-   |
-LL | #[warn(missing_fragment_specifier)]
-   |        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
 warning: include macro expected single expression in source
   --> $DIR/expansion-time-include.rs:4:1
    |
 LL | 2
    | ^
    |
 note: the lint level is defined here
-  --> $DIR/expansion-time.rs:22:8
+  --> $DIR/expansion-time.rs:18:8
    |
 LL | #[warn(incomplete_include)]
    |        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
-warning: 3 warnings emitted
-
-Future incompatibility report: Future breakage diagnostic:
-warning: missing fragment specifier
-  --> $DIR/expansion-time.rs:9:19
-   |
-LL | macro_rules! m { ($i) => {} }
-   |                   ^^
-   |
-   = warning: this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out; it will become a hard error in a future release!
-   = note: for more information, see issue #40107 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40107>
-note: the lint level is defined here
-  --> $DIR/expansion-time.rs:8:8
-   |
-LL | #[warn(missing_fragment_specifier)]
-   |        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+warning: 2 warnings emitted