| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, note that `Map` has three different relevant meanings.
- The `intravisit::Map` trait.
- The `map::Map` struct.
- The `NestedFilter::Map` associated type.
The `intravisit::Map` trait is impl'd twice.
- For `!`, where the methods are all unreachable.
- For `map::Map`, which gets HIR stuff from the `TyCtxt`.
As part of getting rid of `map::Map`, this commit changes `impl
intravisit::Map for map::Map` to `impl intravisit::Map for TyCtxt`. It's
fairly straightforward except various things are renamed, because the
existing names would no longer have made sense.
- `trait intravisit::Map` becomes `trait intravisit::HirTyCtxt`, so named
because it gets some HIR stuff from a `TyCtxt`.
- `NestedFilter::Map` assoc type becomes `NestedFilter::MaybeTyCtxt`,
because it's always `!` or `TyCtxt`.
- `Visitor::nested_visit_map` becomes `Visitor::maybe_tcx`.
I deliberately made the new trait and associated type names different to
avoid the old `type Map: Map` situation, which I found confusing. We now
have `type MaybeTyCtxt: HirTyCtxt`.
|
|
The end goal is to eliminate `Map` altogether.
I added a `hir_` prefix to all of them, that seemed simplest. The
exceptions are `module_items` which became `hir_module_free_items` because
there was already a `hir_module_items`, and `items` which became
`hir_free_items` for consistency with `hir_module_free_items`.
|
|
|
|
`manual_flatten` should respect MSRV.
changelog: [`manual_flatten`]: add MSRV check
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
|
|
|
|
`rustc_middle` is a huge crate and it's always good to move stuff out of
it. There are lots of similar methods already on `Span`, so these two
functions, `in_external_macro` and `is_from_async_await`, fit right in.
The diff is big because `in_external_macro` is used a lot by clippy
lints.
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
|
|
Using `Vec::extend(std::iter::repeat_n(item, N))` allows to use the more
natural number of elements to add `N`, as is probably done in the original
loop, instead of computing the difference between the existing number of
elements and the wanted one.
Before MSRV 1.82, the older suggestion to use `Vec::resize()` is still
issued.
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
|
|
|
|
Handle field attributes in suggestions
Fix adjacent code
Address review comments
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/13737#discussion_r1861352124
Address all review comments but one
This comment is not yet addressed: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/13737#discussion_r1874544907
`initializer_suggestions` -> `lint_inconsistent_struct_field_initializers`
|
|
|
|
Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681.
Support default fields in enum struct variant
Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition:
```rust
pub enum Bar {
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant
```rust
Bar::Foo { .. }
```
`#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants.
Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields
```rust
pub enum Bar {
#[default]
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build.
Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled).
Properly instantiate MIR const
The following works:
```rust
struct S<A> {
a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(),
}
S::<i32> { .. }
```
Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval
We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users'
getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error
that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to
*always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted.
This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the
expression relies on a const parameter.
Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`:
- Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields.
- Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values.
- Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
|
|
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
Inline ExprPrecedence::order into Expr::precedence
The representation of expression precedence in rustc_ast has been an obstacle to further improvements in the pretty-printer (continuing from #119105 and #119427).
Previously the operation of *"does this expression have lower precedence than that one"* (relevant for parenthesis insertion in macro-generated syntax trees) consisted of 3 steps:
1. Convert `Expr` to `ExprPrecedence` using `.precedence()`
2. Convert `ExprPrecedence` to `i8` using `.order()`
3. Compare using `<`
As far as I can guess, the reason for the separation between `precedence()` and `order()` was so that both `rustc_ast::Expr` and `rustc_hir::Expr` could convert as straightforwardly as possible to the same `ExprPrecedence` enum, and then the more finicky logic performed by `order` could be present just once.
The mapping between `Expr` and `ExprPrecedence` was intended to be as straightforward as possible:
```rust
match self.kind {
ExprKind::Closure(..) => ExprPrecedence::Closure,
...
}
```
although there were exceptions of both many-to-one, and one-to-many:
```rust
ExprKind::Underscore => ExprPrecedence::Path,
ExprKind::Path(..) => ExprPrecedence::Path,
...
ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Prefix) => ExprPrecedence::Match,
ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Postfix) => ExprPrecedence::PostfixMatch,
```
Where the nature of `ExprPrecedence` becomes problematic is when a single expression kind might be associated with multiple different precedence levels depending on context (outside the expression) and contents (inside the expression). For example consider what is the precedence of an ExprKind::Closure `$closure`. Well, on the left-hand side of a binary operator it would need parentheses in order to avoid the trailing binary operator being absorbed into the closure body: `($closure) + Rhs`, so the precedence is something lower than that of `+`. But on the right-hand side of a binary operator, a closure is just a straightforward prefix expression like a unary op, which is a relatively high precedence level, higher than binops but lower than method calls: `Lhs + $closure` is fine without parens but `($closure).method()` needs them. But as a third case, if the closure contains an explicit return type, then the precedence is an even higher level than that, never needing parenthesization even in a binop left-hand side or method call: `|| -> bool { false } + Rhs` or `|| -> bool { false }.method()`.
You can see that trying to capture all of this resolution about expressions into `ExprPrecedence` violates the intention of `ExprPrecedence` being a straightforward one-to-one correspondence from each AST and HIR `ExprKind` variant. It would be possible to attempt that by doing stuff like `ExprPrecedence::Closure(Side::Leading, ReturnType::No)`, but I don't foresee the original envisioned benefit of the `precedence()`/`order()` distinction being retained in this approach. Instead I want to move toward a model that Syn has been using successfully. In Syn, there is a Precedence enum but it differs from rustc in the following ways:
- There are [relatively few variants](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/precedence.rs#L11-L47) compared to rustc's `ExprPrecedence`. For example there is no distinction at the precedence level between returns and closures, or between loops and method calls.
- We distinguish between [leading](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L293) and [trailing](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L309) precedence, taking into account an expression's context such as what token follows it (for various syntactic bail-outs in Rust's grammar, like ambiguities around break-with-value) and how it relates to operators from the surrounding syntax tree.
- There are no hardcoded mysterious integer quantities like rustc's `PREC_CLOSURE = -40`. All precedence comparisons are performed via PartialOrd on a C-like enum.
This PR is just a first step in these changes. As you can tell from Syn, I definitely think there is value in having a dedicated type to represent precedence, instead of what `order()` is doing with `i8`. But that is a whole separate adventure because rustc_ast doesn't even agree consistently on `i8` being the type for precedence order; `AssocOp::precedence` instead uses `usize` and there are casts in both directions. It is likely that a type called `ExprPrecedence` will re-appear, but it will look substantially different from the one that existed before this PR.
|
|
|
|
the behavior of the type system not only depends on the current
assumptions, but also the currentnphase of the compiler. This is
mostly necessary as we need to decide whether and how to reveal
opaque types. We track this via the `TypingMode`.
|
|
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
|
|
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
|
|
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
|
|
clippy-subtree-update
|
|
Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`
Follow-up of #122776.
As discussed on [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).
I made this change into a separate PR because I'm less sure about this change as is. For example, we have `visit_local` and `LocalSource` items. Is it fine to keep these two as is (I supposed it is but I prefer to ask) or not? Having `Node::Local(LetStmt)` makes things more explicit but is it going too far?
r? ```@oli-obk```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
