| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
by using a named struct instead of a closure.
|
|
Rewrite `collect_tokens` implementations to use a flattened buffer
Instead of trying to collect tokens at each depth, we 'flatten' the
stream as we go allong, pushing open/close delimiters to our buffer
just like regular tokens. One capturing is complete, we reconstruct a
nested `TokenTree::Delimited` structure, producing a normal
`TokenStream`.
The reconstructed `TokenStream` is not created immediately - instead, it is
produced on-demand by a closure (wrapped in a new `LazyTokenStream` type). This
closure stores a clone of the original `TokenCursor`, plus a record of the
number of calls to `next()/next_desugared()`. This is sufficient to reconstruct
the tokenstream seen by the callback without storing any additional state. If
the tokenstream is never used (e.g. when a captured `macro_rules!` argument is
never passed to a proc macro), we never actually create a `TokenStream`.
This implementation has a number of advantages over the previous one:
* It is significantly simpler, with no edge cases around capturing the
start/end of a delimited group.
* It can be easily extended to allow replacing tokens an an arbitrary
'depth' by just using `Vec::splice` at the proper position. This is
important for PR #76130, which requires us to track information about
attributes along with tokens.
* The lazy approach to `TokenStream` construction allows us to easily
parse an AST struct, and then decide after the fact whether we need a
`TokenStream`. This will be useful when we start collecting tokens for
`Attribute` - we can discard the `LazyTokenStream` if the parsed
attribute doesn't need tokens (e.g. is a builtin attribute).
The performance impact seems to be neglibile (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77250#issuecomment-703960604). There is a
small slowdown on a few benchmarks, but it only rises above 1% for incremental
builds, where it represents a larger fraction of the much smaller instruction
count. There a ~1% speedup on a few other incremental benchmarks - my guess is
that the speedups and slowdowns will usually cancel out in practice.
|
|
Instead of trying to collect tokens at each depth, we 'flatten' the
stream as we go allong, pushing open/close delimiters to our buffer
just like regular tokens. One capturing is complete, we reconstruct a
nested `TokenTree::Delimited` structure, producing a normal
`TokenStream`.
The reconstructed `TokenStream` is not created immediately - instead, it is
produced on-demand by a closure (wrapped in a new `LazyTokenStream` type). This
closure stores a clone of the original `TokenCursor`, plus a record of the
number of calls to `next()/next_desugared()`. This is sufficient to reconstruct
the tokenstream seen by the callback without storing any additional state. If
the tokenstream is never used (e.g. when a captured `macro_rules!` argument is
never passed to a proc macro), we never actually create a `TokenStream`.
This implementation has a number of advantages over the previous one:
* It is significantly simpler, with no edge cases around capturing the
start/end of a delimited group.
* It can be easily extended to allow replacing tokens an an arbitrary
'depth' by just using `Vec::splice` at the proper position. This is
important for PR #76130, which requires us to track information about
attributes along with tokens.
* The lazy approach to `TokenStream` construction allows us to easily
parse an AST struct, and then decide after the fact whether we need a
`TokenStream`. This will be useful when we start collecting tokens for
`Attribute` - we can discard the `LazyTokenStream` if the parsed
attribute doesn't need tokens (e.g. is a builtin attribute).
The performance impact seems to be neglibile (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77250#issuecomment-703960604). There is a
small slowdown on a few benchmarks, but it only rises above 1% for incremental
builds, where it represents a larger fraction of the much smaller instruction
count. There a ~1% speedup on a few other incremental benchmarks - my guess is
that the speedups and slowdowns will usually cancel out in practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
To match better naming from proc-macro
|
|
|
