| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spellchecking compiler comments
This PR cleans up the rest of the spelling mistakes in the compiler comments. This PR does not change any literal or code spelling issues.
|
|
Remember mutability in `DefKind::Static`.
This allows to compute the `BodyOwnerKind` from `DefKind` only, and
removes a direct dependency of some MIR queries onto HIR.
As a side effect, it also simplifies metadata, since we don't need 4
flavours of `EntryKind::*Static` any more.
|
|
|
|
This PR cleans up the rest of the spelling mistakes in the compiler comments. This PR does not change any literal or code spelling issues.
|
|
Rollup of 5 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #95294 (Document Linux kernel handoff in std::io::copy and std::fs::copy)
- #95443 (Clarify how `src/tools/x` searches for python)
- #95452 (fix since field version for termination stabilization)
- #95460 (Spellchecking compiler code)
- #95461 (Spellchecking some comments)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
This PR attempts to clean up some minor spelling mistakes in comments
|
|
This allows to compute the `BodyOwnerKind` from `DefKind` only, and
removes a direct dependency of some MIR queries onto HIR.
As a side effect, it also simplifies metadata, since we don't need 4
flavours of `EntryKind::*Static` any more.
|
|
This reverts commit 6499c5e7fc173a3f55b7a3bd1e6a50e9edef782d, reversing
changes made to 78450d2d602b06d9b94349aaf8cece1a4acaf3a8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pat_is_poly in IsThirPolymorphic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix many spelling mistakes
Signed-off-by: codehorseman <cricis@yeah.net>
|
|
There are a few places were we have to construct it, though, and a few
places that are more invasive to change. To do this, we create a
constructor with a long obvious name.
|
|
Signed-off-by: codehorseman <cricis@yeah.net>
|
|
Only look for complete suffixes or prefixes of irrefutable let patterns, so
that an irrefutable let pattern in a chain surrounded by refutable ones is
not linted, as it is an useful pattern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This commit makes `AdtDef` use `Interned`. Much the commit is tedious
changes to introduce getter functions. The interesting changes are in
`compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/adt.rs`.
|
|
Treat constant values as mir::ConstantKind::Val
Another step that is necessary for the introduction of Valtrees: we don't want to treat `ty::Const` instances of kind `ty::ConstKind::Value` as `mir::ConstantKind::Ty` anymore.
r? `@oli-obk`
|
|
Suggest `if let`/`let_else` for refutable pat in `let`
r? `````@oli-obk`````
|
|
|
|
Reinstate #93800
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93800 caused a regression in an alt builder with parallel enabled. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94205 reverted that PR because of the regression. For an unknown reason the regression has disappeared, so we reinstate the changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93800 here.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
`span_label`
This makes the order of the output always consistent:
1. Place of the `match` missing arms
2. The `enum` definition span
3. The structured suggestion to add a fallthrough arm
|
|
Given
```rust
match Some(42) {
Some(0) => {}
Some(1) => {}
}
```
suggest
```rust
match Some(42) {
Some(0) => {}
Some(1) => {}
None | Some(_) => todo!(),
}
```
|
|
Given
```rust
match Some(42) {
Some(0) => {}
}
```
suggest
```rust
match Some(42) {
Some(0) => {}
None | Some(_) => todo!(),
}
```
|
|
Given
```rust
match Some(42) {}
```
suggest
```rust
match Some(42) { None | Some(_) => todo!(), }
```
|
|
|
|
Continuation of #94376.
cc #53667
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
safely `transmute<&List<Ty<'tcx>>, &List<GenericArg<'tcx>>>`
This PR has 3 relevant steps which are is split in distinct commits.
The first commit now interns `List<Ty<'tcx>>` and `List<GenericArg<'tcx>>` together, potentially reusing memory while allowing free conversions between these two using `List<Ty<'tcx>>::as_substs()` and `SubstsRef<'tcx>::try_as_type_list()`.
Using this, we then use `&'tcx List<Ty<'tcx>>` instead of a `SubstsRef<'tcx>` for tuple fields, simplifying a bunch of code.
Finally, as tuple fields and other generic arguments now use a different `TypeFoldable<'tcx>` impl, we optimize the impl for `List<Ty<'tcx>>` improving perf by slightly less than 1% in tuple heavy benchmarks.
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit a240ccd81c74c105b6f5fe84c46f8d36edb7e306, reversing
changes made to 393fdc10483da930cdbb00eabc3635030d2e776f.
This PR was likely responsible for a relatively large regression in
dist-x86_64-msvc-alt builder times, from approximately 1.7 to 2.8 hours,
bringing that builder into the pool of the slowest builders we currently have.
This seems to be limited to the alt builder due to needing parallel-compiler
enabled, likely leading to slow LLVM compilation for some reason.
|
|
Improve `unused_unsafe` lint
I’m going to add some motivation and explanation below, particularly pointing the changes in behavior from this PR.
_Edit:_ Looking for existing issues, looks like this PR fixes #88260.
_Edit2:_ Now also contains code that closes #90776.
|
|
Main motivation: Fixes some issues with the current behavior. This PR is
more-or-less completely re-implementing the unused_unsafe lint; it’s also only
done in the MIR-version of the lint, the set of tests for the `-Zthir-unsafeck`
version no longer succeeds (and is thus disabled, see `lint-unused-unsafe.rs`).
On current nightly,
```rs
unsafe fn unsf() {}
fn inner_ignored() {
unsafe {
#[allow(unused_unsafe)]
unsafe {
unsf()
}
}
}
```
doesn’t create any warnings. This situation is not unrealistic to come by, the
inner `unsafe` block could e.g. come from a macro. Actually, this PR even
includes removal of one unused `unsafe` in the standard library that was missed
in a similar situation. (The inner `unsafe` coming from an external macro hides
the warning, too.)
The reason behind this problem is how the check currently works:
* While generating MIR, it already skips nested unsafe blocks (i.e. unsafe
nested in other unsafe) so that the inner one is always the one considered
unused
* To differentiate the cases of no unsafe operations inside the `unsafe` vs.
a surrounding `unsafe` block, there’s some ad-hoc magic walking up the HIR to
look for surrounding used `unsafe` blocks.
There’s a lot of problems with this approach besides the one presented above.
E.g. the MIR-building uses checks for `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint to decide
early whether or not `unsafe` blocks in an `unsafe fn` are redundant and ought
to be removed.
```rs
unsafe fn granular_disallow_op_in_unsafe_fn() {
unsafe {
#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
{
unsf();
}
}
}
```
```
error: call to unsafe function is unsafe and requires unsafe block (error E0133)
--> src/main.rs:13:13
|
13 | unsf();
| ^^^^^^ call to unsafe function
|
note: the lint level is defined here
--> src/main.rs:11:16
|
11 | #[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
= note: consult the function's documentation for information on how to avoid undefined behavior
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:5
|
9 | unsafe fn granular_disallow_op_in_unsafe_fn() {
| --------------------------------------------- because it's nested under this `unsafe` fn
10 | unsafe {
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
Here, the intermediate `unsafe` was ignored, even though it contains a unsafe
operation that is not allowed to happen in an `unsafe fn` without an additional `unsafe` block.
Also closures were problematic and the workaround/algorithms used on current
nightly didn’t work properly. (I skipped trying to fully understand what it was
supposed to do, because this PR uses a completely different approach.)
```rs
fn nested() {
unsafe {
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
vs
```rs
fn nested() {
let _ = || unsafe {
let _ = || unsafe { unsf() };
};
}
```
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:9:16
|
9 | let _ = || unsafe {
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:20
|
10 | let _ = || unsafe { unsf() };
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
*note that this warning kind-of suggests that **both** unsafe blocks are redundant*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also dislike the fact that it always suggests keeping the outermost `unsafe`.
E.g. for
```rs
fn granularity() {
unsafe {
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
I prefer if `rustc` suggests removing the more-course outer-level `unsafe`
instead of the fine-grained inner `unsafe` blocks, which it currently does on nightly:
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:10:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:11:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsafe { unsf() }
11 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:12:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
12 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Needless to say, this PR addresses all these points. For context, as far as my
understanding goes, the main advantage of skipping inner unsafe blocks was that
a test case like
```rs
fn top_level_used() {
unsafe {
unsf();
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
should generate some warning because there’s redundant nested `unsafe`, however
every single `unsafe` block _does_ contain some statement that uses it. Of course
this PR doesn’t aim change the warnings on this kind of code example, because
the current behavior, warning on all the inner `unsafe` blocks, makes sense in this case.
As mentioned, during MIR building all the unsafe blocks *are* kept now, and usage
is attributed to them. The way to still generate a warning like
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:11:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
10 | unsf();
11 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:12:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
12 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/main.rs:13:9
|
9 | unsafe {
| ------ because it's nested under this `unsafe` block
...
13 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
```
in this case is by emitting a `unused_unsafe` warning for all of the `unsafe`
blocks that are _within a **used** unsafe block_.
The previous code had a little HIR traversal already anyways to collect a set of
all the unsafe blocks (in order to afterwards determine which ones are unused
afterwards). This PR uses such a traversal to do additional things including logic
like _always_ warn for an `unsafe` block that’s inside of another **used**
unsafe block. The traversal is expanded to include nested closures in the same go,
this simplifies a lot of things.
The whole logic around `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` is a little complicated, there’s
some test cases of corner-cases in this PR. (The implementation involves
differentiating between whether a used unsafe block was used exclusively by
operations where `allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)` was active.) The main goal was
to make sure that code should compile successfully if all the `unused_unsafe`-warnings
are addressed _simultaneously_ (by removing the respective `unsafe` blocks)
no matter how complicated the patterns of `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` being
disallowed and allowed throughout the function are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One noteworthy design decision I took here: An `unsafe` block
with `allow(unused_unsafe)` **is considered used** for the purposes of
linting about redundant contained unsafe blocks. So while
```rs
fn granularity() {
unsafe { //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
unsafe { unsf() }
}
}
```
warns for the outer `unsafe` block,
```rs
fn top_level_ignored() {
#[allow(unused_unsafe)]
unsafe {
#[deny(unused_unsafe)]
{
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
unsafe { unsf() } //~ ERROR: unnecessary `unsafe` block
}
}
}
```
warns on the inner ones.
|
|
Move ty::print methods to Drop-based scope guards
Primary goal is reducing codegen of the TLS access for each closure, which shaves ~3 seconds of bootstrap time over rustc as a whole.
|
|
|
