| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
various clippy fixes
We need to keep the order of the given clippy lint rules before passing them.
Since clap doesn't offer any useful interface for this purpose out of the box,
we have to handle it manually.
Additionally, this PR makes `-D` rules work as expected. Previously, lint rules were limited to `-W`. By enabling `-D`, clippy began to complain numerous lines in the tree, all of which have been resolved in this PR as well.
Fixes #121481
cc `@matthiaskrgr`
|
|
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
|
|
actual overrides in codegen
|
|
Stabilize associated type bounds (RFC 2289)
This PR stabilizes associated type bounds, which were laid out in [RFC 2289]. This gives us a shorthand to express nested type bounds that would otherwise need to be expressed with nested `impl Trait` or broken into several `where` clauses.
### What are we stabilizing?
We're stabilizing the associated item bounds syntax, which allows us to put bounds in associated type position within other bounds, i.e. `T: Trait<Assoc: Bounds...>`. See [RFC 2289] for motivation.
In all position, the associated type bound syntax expands into a set of two (or more) bounds, and never anything else (see "How does this differ[...]" section for more info).
Associated type bounds are stabilized in four positions:
* **`where` clauses (and APIT)** - This is equivalent to breaking up the bound into two (or more) `where` clauses. For example, `where T: Trait<Assoc: Bound>` is equivalent to `where T: Trait, <T as Trait>::Assoc: Bound`.
* **Supertraits** - Similar to above, `trait CopyIterator: Iterator<Item: Copy> {}`. This is almost equivalent to breaking up the bound into two (or more) `where` clauses; however, the bound on the associated item is implied whenever the trait is used. See #112573/#112629.
* **Associated type item bounds** - This allows constraining the *nested* rigid projections that are associated with a trait's associated types. e.g. `trait Trait { type Assoc: Trait2<Assoc2: Copy>; }`.
* **opaque item bounds (RPIT, TAIT)** - This allows constraining associated types that are associated with the opaque without having to *name* the opaque. For example, `impl Iterator<Item: Copy>` defines an iterator whose item is `Copy` without having to actually name that item bound.
The latter three are not expressible in surface Rust (though for associated type item bounds, this will change in #120752, which I don't believe should block this PR), so this does represent a slight expansion of what can be expressed in trait bounds.
### How does this differ from the RFC?
Compared to the RFC, the current implementation *always* desugars associated type bounds to sets of `ty::Clause`s internally. Specifically, it does *not* introduce a position-dependent desugaring as laid out in [RFC 2289], and in particular:
* It does *not* desugar to anonymous associated items in associated type item bounds.
* It does *not* desugar to nested RPITs in RPIT bounds, nor nested TAITs in TAIT bounds.
This position-dependent desugaring laid out in the RFC existed simply to side-step limitations of the trait solver, which have mostly been fixed in #120584. The desugaring laid out in the RFC also added unnecessary complication to the design of the feature, and introduces its own limitations to, for example:
* Conditionally lowering to nested `impl Trait` in certain positions such as RPIT and TAIT means that we inherit the limitations of RPIT/TAIT, namely lack of support for higher-ranked opaque inference. See this code example: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120752#issuecomment-1979412531.
* Introducing anonymous associated types makes traits no longer object safe, since anonymous associated types are not nameable, and all associated types must be named in `dyn` types.
This last point motivates why this PR is *not* stabilizing support for associated type bounds in `dyn` types, e.g, `dyn Assoc<Item: Bound>`. Why? Because `dyn` types need to have *concrete* types for all associated items, this would necessitate a distinct lowering for associated type bounds, which seems both complicated and unnecessary compared to just requiring the user to write `impl Trait` themselves. See #120719.
### Implementation history:
Limited to the significant behavioral changes and fixes and relevant PRs, ping me if I left something out--
* #57428
* #108063
* #110512
* #112629
* #120719
* #120584
Closes #52662
[RFC 2289]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2289-associated-type-bounds.html
|
|
never patterns: suggest `!` patterns on non-exhaustive matches
When a match is non-exhaustive we now suggest never patterns whenever it makes sense.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
|
|
cases that used `None`
|
|
|
|
r=compiler-errors,petrochenkov
`f16` and `f128` step 3: compiler support & feature gate
Continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121841, another portion of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114607
This PR exposes the new types to the world and adds a feature gate. Marking this as a draft because I need some feedback on where I did the feature gate check. It also does not yet catch type via suffixed literals (so the feature gate test will fail, probably some others too because I haven't belssed).
If there is a better place to check all types after resolution, I can do that. If not, I figure maybe I can add a second gate location in AST when it checks numeric suffixes.
Unfortunately I still don't think there is much testing to be done for correctness (codegen tests or parsed value checks) until we have basic library support. I think that will be the next step.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116909
r? `@compiler-errors`
cc `@Nilstrieb`
`@rustbot` label +F-f16_and_f128
|
|
Rename `StmtKind::Local` variant into `StmtKind::Let`
It comes from this [discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).
Starting point was:
> I often end up looking at [ExprKind::Let](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_hir/enum.ExprKind.html#variant.Let) instead of Local because of the name. I think renaming it (both the `ExprKind` variant and the Let struct) to `LetPattern` or LetPat could improve the situation as I'm not sure I'm not the only one encountering this issue.
And then it evolved into:
> It's already `Expr::Let` instead of `StmtKind::Local`. Counterproposal: rename `StmtKind::Local` to `StmtKind::Let`.
The goal here is to clear this confusion.
r? `@oli-obk`
|
|
coverage: Initial support for branch coverage instrumentation
(This is a review-ready version of the changes that were drafted in #118305.)
This PR adds support for branch coverage instrumentation, gated behind the unstable flag value `-Zcoverage-options=branch`. (Coverage instrumentation must also be enabled with `-Cinstrument-coverage`.)
During THIR-to-MIR lowering (MIR building), if branch coverage is enabled, we collect additional information about branch conditions and their corresponding then/else blocks. We inject special marker statements into those blocks, so that the `InstrumentCoverage` MIR pass can reliably identify them even after the initially-built MIR has been simplified and renumbered.
The rest of the changes are mostly just plumbing needed to gather up the information that was collected during MIR building, and include it in the coverage metadata that we embed in the final binary.
Note that `llvm-cov show` doesn't print branch coverage information in its source views by default; that needs to be explicitly enabled with `--show-branches=count` or similar.
---
The current implementation doesn't have any support for instrumenting `if let` or let-chains. I think it's still useful without that, and adding it would be non-trivial, so I'm happy to leave that for future work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
match lowering: don't collect test alternatives ahead of time
I'm very happy with this one. Before this, when sorting candidates into the possible test branches, we manually computed `usize` indices to determine in which branch each candidate goes. To make this work we had a first pass that collected the possible alternatives we'd have to deal with, and a second pass that actually sorts the candidates.
In this PR, I replace `usize` indices with a dedicated enum. This makes `sort_candidates` easier to follow, and we don't need the first pass anymore.
r? ``@matthewjasper``
|
|
pattern analysis: Store field indices in `DeconstructedPat` to avoid virtual wildcards
For a pattern like `Struct { field3: true, .. }`, in pattern analysis we represent it as `Struct { field1: _, field2: _, field3: true, field4: _ }`. This PR makes it so we store `Struct { field3: true, .. }` instead. This means we never have to create fake `_` patterns during lowering.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clarity improvements to `DropTree`
These changes are based on some points of confusion I had when initially trying to understand this code.
The only “functional” change is an additional assertion in `<ExitScopes as DropTreeBuilder>::link_entry_point`, checking that the dummy terminator is `TerminatorKind::UnwindResume` as expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
To match `derive(Subdiagnostic)`.
Also rename `add_to_diagnostic{,_with}` as `add_to_diag{,_with}`.
|
|
To match `derive(Diagnostic)`.
Also rename `into_diagnostic` as `into_diag`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add asm goto support to `asm!`
Tracking issue: #119364
This PR implements asm-goto support, using the syntax described in "future possibilities" section of [RFC2873](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2873-inline-asm.html#asm-goto).
Currently I have only implemented the `label` part, not the `fallthrough` part (i.e. fallthrough is implicit). This doesn't reduce the expressive though, since you can use label-break to get arbitrary control flow or simply set a value and rely on jump threading optimisation to get the desired control flow. I can add that later if deemed necessary.
r? ``@Amanieu``
cc ``@ojeda``
|
|
This method would previously take a target scope, and then verify that it
was equal to the scope on top of the if-then scope stack.
In practice, this means that callers have to go out of their way to pass around
redundant scope information that's already on the if-then stack.
So it's easier to just retrieve the correct scope directly from the if-then
stack, and simplify the other code that was passing it around.
|
|
This allows us to use real field names instead of tuple element numbers.
Renaming `previous_drops` to `existing_drops_map` clarifies that "previous" was
unrelated to drop order.
|
|
This clarifies that we're adding an "entry point", not just adding an "entry"
of some kind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This makes it easier to see that the call to `in_scope` returns both the then
block and the else block. The rather confusing `unpack!` step is confined to
its own separate line.
(This patch reindents several lines, so using "ignore whitespace" is
recommended in order to focus on the actual changes.)
|
|
|
|
Extract an arguments struct for `Builder::then_else_break`
Most of this method's arguments are usually or always forwarded as-is to recursive invocations.
Wrapping them in a dedicated struct allows us to document each struct field, and lets us use struct-update syntax to indicate which arguments are being modified when making a recursive call.
---
While trying to understand the lowering of `if` expressions, I found it difficult to keep track of the half-dozen arguments passed through to every call to `then_else_break`. I tried switching over to an arguments struct, and I found that it really helps to make sense of what each argument does, and how each call is modifying the arguments.
I have some further ideas for how to streamline these recursive calls, but I've kept those out of this PR so that it's a pure refactoring with no behavioural changes.
|
|
Most of this method's arguments are usually or always forwarded as-is to
recursive invocations.
Wrapping them in a dedicated struct allows us to document each struct field,
and lets us use struct-update syntax to indicate which arguments are being
modified when making a recursive call.
|
|
r=Nadrieril
Add new `pattern_complexity` attribute to add possibility to limit and check recursion in pattern matching
Needed for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/9528.
This PR adds a new attribute only available when running rust testsuite called `pattern_complexity` which allows to set the maximum recursion for the pattern matching. It is quite useful to ensure the complexity doesn't grow, like in `tests/ui/pattern/usefulness/issue-118437-exponential-time-on-diagonal-match.rs`.
r? `@Nadrieril`
|
|
recursion in pattern matching
|
|
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #120761 (Add initial support for DataFlowSanitizer)
- #121622 (Preserve same vtable pointer when cloning raw waker, to fix Waker::will_wake)
- #121716 (match lowering: Lower bindings in a predictable order)
- #121731 (Now that inlining, mir validation and const eval all use reveal-all, we won't be constraining hidden types here anymore)
- #121841 (`f16` and `f128` step 2: intrinsics)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
match lowering: Lower bindings in a predictable order
After the recent refactorings, we can now lower bindings in a truly predictable order. The order in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120214 was an improvement but not very clear. With this PR, we lower bindings from left to right, with the special case that `x @ pat` is traversed as `pat @ x` (i.e. `x` is lowered after any bindings in `pat`).
This description only applies in the absence of or-patterns. Or-patterns make everything complicated, because the binding place depends on the subpattern. Until I have a better idea I leave them to be handled in whatever weird order arises from today's code.
r? `@matthewjasper`
|
|
Before, the SwitchInt cases were computed in two passes: if the first
pass accepted e.g. 0..=5 and then 1, the second pass would not accept
0..=5 anymore because 1 would be listed in the SwitchInt options.
Now there's a single pass, so if we sort 0..=5 we must take care to not
sort a subsequent 1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
