| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the implementation (#140035), this was left as an open question for
the tracking issue (#136889). My assumption is that this should be
carried over.
Thankfully, either way, `-Zunpretty` is unstable and we can always
change it even if we stabilize frontmatter.
|
|
|
|
Fix some comments and related types and locals where it is obvious, e.g.
- bare_fn -> fn_ptr
- LifetimeBinderKind::BareFnType -> LifetimeBinderKind::FnPtrType
Co-authored-by: León Orell Valerian Liehr <me@fmease.dev>
|
|
|
|
It collects data about macro expansions and prints them in a table after
expansion finishes. It's very useful for detecting macro bloat,
especially for proc macros.
Details:
- It measures code snippets by pretty-printing them and then measuring
lines and bytes. This required a bunch of additional pretty-printing
plumbing, in `rustc_ast_pretty` and `rustc_expand`.
- The measurement is done in `MacroExpander::expand_invoc`.
- The measurements are stored in `ExtCtxt::macro_stats`.
|
|
|
|
pretty-print: Print shebang at the top of the output
Shebang should stay at the top of the file, even after pretty-printing.
Closes #134643
|
|
Improve pretty-printing of braces
r? ````@petrochenkov````
|
|
implement or-patterns for pattern types
These are necessary to represent `NonZeroI32`, as the range for that is `..0 | 1..`. The `rustc_scalar_layout_range_*` attributes avoided this by just implementing wraparound and having a single `1..=-1` range effectively. See https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/481660-t-lang.2Fpattern-types/topic/.60or.20pattern.60.20representation.20in.20type.20system/with/504217694 for some background discussion
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123646
r? `@BoxyUwU`
|
|
Most notably, the `FIXME` for suboptimal printing of `use` groups in
`tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs` is fixed. And all other test output
changes result in pretty printed output being closer to the original
formatting in the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The pretty-printers open and close "boxes" of text a lot. The open and
close operations must be matched. The matching is currently all implicit
and very easy to get wrong. (#140280 and #140246 are two recent
pretty-printing fixes that both involved unclosed boxes.)
This commit introduces `BoxMarker`, a marker type that represents an
open box. It makes box opening/closing explicit, which makes it much
easier to understand and harder to get wrong.
The commit also removes many comments are on `end` calls saying things
like "end outer head-block", "Close the outer-box". These demonstrate
how confusing the implicit approach was, but aren't necessary any more.
|
|
Remove unnecessary clones
r? `@SparrowLii`
|
|
I found these by grepping for `&[a-z_\.]*\.clone()`, i.e. expressions
like `&a.b.clone()`, which are sometimes unnecessary clones, and also
looking at clones nearby to cases like that.
|
|
By replacing them with `{Open,Close}{Param,Brace,Bracket,Invisible}`.
PR #137902 made `ast::TokenKind` more like `lexer::TokenKind` by
replacing the compound `BinOp{,Eq}(BinOpToken)` variants with fieldless
variants `Plus`, `Minus`, `Star`, etc. This commit does a similar thing
with delimiters. It also makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`parser::TokenType`.
This requires a few new methods:
- `TokenKind::is_{,open_,close_}delim()` replace various kinds of
pattern matches.
- `Delimiter::as_{open,close}_token_kind` are used to convert
`Delimiter` values to `TokenKind`.
Despite these additions, it's a net reduction in lines of code. This is
because e.g. `token::OpenParen` is so much shorter than
`token::OpenDelim(Delimiter::Parenthesis)` that many multi-line forms
reduce to single line forms. And many places where the number of lines
doesn't change are still easier to read, just because the names are
shorter, e.g.:
```
- } else if self.token != token::CloseDelim(Delimiter::Brace) {
+ } else if self.token != token::CloseBrace {
```
|
|
nnethercote:rm-Nonterminal-and-TokenKind-Interpolated, r=petrochenkov
Remove `Nonterminal` and `TokenKind::Interpolated`
A third attempt at this; the first attempt was #96724 and the second was #114647.
r? `@ghost`
|
|
Implement `super let`
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/139076
This implements `super let` as proposed in #139080, based on the following two equivalence rules.
1. For all expressions `$expr` in any context, these are equivalent:
- `& $expr`
- `{ super let a = & $expr; a }`
2. And, additionally, these are equivalent in any context when `$expr` is a temporary (aka rvalue):
- `& $expr`
- `{ super let a = $expr; & a }`
So far, this experiment has a few interesting results:
## Interesting result 1
In this snippet:
```rust
super let a = f(&temp());
```
I originally expected temporary `temp()` would be dropped at the end of the statement (`;`), just like in a regular `let`, because `temp()` is not subject to temporary lifetime extension.
However, it turns out that that would break the fundamental equivalence rules.
For example, in
```rust
g(&f(&temp()));
```
the temporary `temp()` will be dropped at the `;`.
The first equivalence rule tells us this must be equivalent:
```rust
g({ super let a = &f(&temp()); a });
```
But that means that `temp()` must live until the last `;` (after `g()`), not just the first `;` (after `f()`).
While this was somewhat surprising to me at first, it does match the exact behavior we need for `pin!()`: The following _should work_. (See also https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138718)
```rust
g(pin!(f(&mut temp())));
```
Here, `temp()` lives until the end of the statement. This makes sense from the perspective of the user, as no other `;` or `{}` are visible. Whether `pin!()` uses a `{}` block internally or not should be irrelevant.
This means that _nothing_ in a `super let` statement will be dropped at the end of that super let statement. It does not even need its own scope.
This raises questions that are useful for later on:
- Will this make temporaries live _too long_ in cases where `super let` is used not in a hidden block in a macro, but as a visible statement in code like the following?
```rust
let writer = {
super let file = File::create(&format!("/home/{user}/test"));
Writer::new(&file)
};
```
- Is a `let` statement in a block still the right syntax for this? Considering it has _no_ scope of its own, maybe neither a block nor a statement should be involved
This leads me to think that instead of `{ super let $pat = $init; $expr }`, we might want to consider something like `let $pat = $init in $expr` or `$expr where $pat = $init`. Although there are also issues with these, as it isn't obvious anymore if `$init` should be subject to temporary lifetime extension. (Do we want both `let _ = _ in ..` and `super let _ = _ in ..`?)
## Interesting result 2
What about `super let x;` without initializer?
```rust
let a = {
super let x;
x = temp();
&x
};
```
This works fine with the implementation in this PR: `x` is extended to live as long as `a`.
While it matches my expectations, a somewhat interesting thing to realize is that these are _not_ equivalent:
- `super let x = $expr;`
- `super let x; x = $expr;`
In the first case, all temporaries in $expr will live at least as long as (the result of) the surrounding block.
In the second case, temporaries will be dropped at the end of the assignment statement. (Because the assignment statement itself "is not `super`".)
This difference in behavior might be confusing, but it _might_ be useful.
One might want to extend the lifetime of a variable without extending all the temporaries in the initializer expression.
On the other hand, that can also be expressed as:
- `let x = $expr; super let x = x;` (w/o temporary lifetime extension), or
- `super let x = { $expr };` (w/ temporary lifetime extension)
So, this raises these questions:
- Do we want to accept `super let x;` without initializer at all?
- Does it make sense for statements other than let statements to be "super"? An expression statement also drops temporaries at its `;`, so now that we discovered that `super let` basically disables that `;` (see interesting result 1), is there a use to having other statements without their own scope? (I don't think that's ever useful?)
## Interesting result 3
This works now:
```rust
super let Some(x) = a.get(i) else { return };
```
I didn't put in any special cases for `super let else`. This is just the behavior that 'naturally' falls out when implementing `super let` without thinking of the `let else` case.
- Should `super let else` work?
## Interesting result 4
This 'works':
```rust
fn main() {
super let a = 123;
}
```
I didn't put in any special cases for `super let` at function scope. I had expected the code to cause an ICE or other weird failure when used at function body scope, because there's no way to let the variable live as long as the result of the function.
This raises the question:
- Does this mean that this behavior is the natural/expected behavior when `super let` is used at function scope? Or is this just a quirk and should we explicitly disallow `super let` in a function body? (Probably the latter.)
---
The questions above do not need an answer to land this PR. These questions should be considered when redesigning/rfc'ing/stabilizing the feature.
|
|
Add new `PatKind::Missing` variants
To avoid some ugly uses of `kw::Empty` when handling "missing" patterns, e.g. in bare fn tys. Helps with #137978. Details in the individual commits.
r? ``@oli-obk``
|
|
Co-authored-by: lcnr <rust@lcnr.de>
|
|
|
|
`NtBlock` is the last remaining variant of `Nonterminal`, so once it is
gone then `Nonterminal` can be removed as well.
|
|
"Missing" patterns are possible in bare fn types (`fn f(u32)`) and
similar places. Currently these are represented in the AST with
`ast::PatKind::Ident` with no `by_ref`, no `mut`, an empty ident, and no
sub-pattern. This flows through to `{hir,thir}::PatKind::Binding` for
HIR and THIR.
This is a bit nasty. It's very non-obvious, and easy to forget to check
for the exceptional empty identifier case.
This commit adds a new variant, `PatKind::Missing`, to do it properly.
The process I followed:
- Add a `Missing` variant to `{ast,hir,thir}::PatKind`.
- Chang `parse_param_general` to produce `ast::PatKind::Missing`
instead of `ast::PatKind::Missing`.
- Look through `kw::Empty` occurrences to find functions where an
existing empty ident check needs replacing with a `PatKind::Missing`
check: `print_param`, `check_trait_item`, `is_named_param`.
- Add a `PatKind::Missing => unreachable!(),` arm to every exhaustive
match identified by the compiler.
- Find which arms are actually reachable by running the test suite,
changing them to something appropriate, usually by looking at what
would happen to a `PatKind::Ident`/`PatKind::Binding` with no ref, no
`mut`, an empty ident, and no subpattern.
Quite a few of the `unreachable!()` arms were never reached. This makes
sense because `PatKind::Missing` can't happen in every pattern, only
in places like bare fn tys and trait fn decls.
I also tried an alternative approach: modifying `ast::Param::pat` to
hold an `Option<P<Pat>>` instead of a `P<Pat>`, but that quickly turned
into a very large and painful change. Adding `PatKind::Missing` is much
easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For consistency with `rustc_lexer::TokenKind::Bang`, and because other
`ast::TokenKind` variants generally have syntactic names instead of
semantic names (e.g. `Star` and `DotDot` instead of `Mul` and `Range`).
|
|
`BinOpToken` is badly named, because it only covers the assignable
binary ops and excludes comparisons and `&&`/`||`. Its use in
`ast::TokenKind` does allow a small amount of code sharing, but it's a
clumsy factoring.
This commit removes `ast::TokenKind::BinOp{,Eq}`, replacing each one
with 10 individual variants. This makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`rustc_lexer::TokenKind`, which has individual variants for all
operators.
Although the number of lines of code increases, the number of chars
decreases due to the frequent use of shorter names like `token::Plus`
instead of `token::BinOp(BinOpToken::Plus)`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overhaul token cursors
Some nice cleanups here.
r? `````@davidtwco`````
|
|
`rustc_span::symbol` defines some things that are re-exported from
`rustc_span`, such as `Symbol` and `sym`. But it doesn't re-export some
closely related things such as `Ident` and `kw`. So you can do `use
rustc_span::{Symbol, sym}` but you have to do `use
rustc_span::symbol::{Ident, kw}`, which is inconsistent for no good
reason.
This commit re-exports `Ident`, `kw`, and `MacroRulesNormalizedIdent`,
and changes many `rustc_span::symbol::` qualifiers in `compiler/` to
`rustc_span::`. This is a 200+ net line of code reduction, mostly
because many files with two `use rustc_span` items can be reduced to
one.
|
|
Because `TokenStreamIter` is a much better name for a `TokenStream`
iterator. Also rename the `TokenStream::trees` method as
`TokenStream::iter`, and some local variables.
|
|
Keep track of patterns that could have introduced a binding, but didn't
When we recover from a pattern parse error, or a pattern uses `..`, we keep track of that and affect resolution error for missing bindings that could have been provided by that pattern. We differentiate between `..` and parse recovery. We silence resolution errors likely caused by the pattern parse error.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `title` in this scope
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:18:30
|
LL | if let Website { url, .. } = website {
| ------------------- this pattern doesn't include `title`, which is available in `Website`
LL | println!("[{}]({})", title, url);
| ^^^^^ not found in this scope
```
Fix #74863.
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we recover from a pattern parse error, or a pattern uses `..`, we keep track of that and affect resolution error for missing bindings that could have been provided by that pattern. We differentiate between `..` and parse recovery. We silence resolution errors likely caused by the pattern parse error.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `title` in this scope
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:19:30
|
LL | println!("[{}]({})", title, url);
| ^^^^^ not found in this scope
|
note: `Website` has a field `title` which could have been included in this pattern, but it wasn't
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:17:12
|
LL | / struct Website {
LL | | url: String,
LL | | title: Option<String> ,
| | ----- defined here
LL | | }
| |_-
...
LL | if let Website { url, .. } = website {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this pattern doesn't include `title`, which is available in `Website`
```
Fix #74863.
|
|
|
|
Parse guard patterns
This implements the parsing of [RFC3637 Guard Patterns](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3637-guard-patterns.html) (see also [tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129967)). This PR is extracted from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129996 with minor modifications.
cc `@max-niederman`
|
|
|
|
|
