[LeSeulArtichaut]

Fixes #106126, alternative to #106127.
r? @ghost for now.

[compiler-errors]

r=me with FIXME stating that not trimming the path is non-ideal

@bors delegate+

[bors]

✌️ @LeSeulArtichaut can now approve this pull request

[LeSeulArtichaut]

@bors r=compiler-errors

[bors]

📌 Commit 2a7d559 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[Enselic]

Edit: it does work, see #106157 (comment).

Sorry to ping in an old PR, but it does not seem like the regression test works? Compiling the test code with nightly-2022-12-24 (the date of the initial PR, i.e. before this fix was merged) triggers no ICE.

Paste this in bash to see for yourselves:

cd $(mktemp -d)

cat >issue-106126.rs <<EOF 
#[macro_export]
macro_rules! foo {
    () => {
        unsafe fn __unsf() {}
        unsafe fn __foo() {
            __unsf();
        }
    };
}
EOF

cat >issue-106126-good-path-bug.rs <<EOF
// Regression test for #106126.
// check-pass
// aux-build:issue-106126.rs

#![deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]

#[macro_use]
extern crate issue_106126;

foo!();

fn main() {}
EOF

toolchain=nightly-2022-12-24

rustup install $toolchain --profile minimal

rustc +$toolchain --crate-type lib issue-106126.rs

rustc +$toolchain -L. issue-106126-good-path-bug.rs
# expected: error
# actual: no error

The reason I care is because this test blocks fixing #112504 which I am working on in #165210 (see #165210 (comment) for the exact CI failure). But since the original reproducer does not seem to work, I can't confirm that fixing that CI failure would still catch a regression of this fix.

Unless I am making some silly mistake, the best way forward to unblock #165210 seems to me to be to simply remove the test.

[Enselic]

Turns out the test does work, one just has to pass -Zthir-unsafeck, see #165583 (comment).