| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just because the code says it's OK does not mean that it actually is OK.
Nodes with the same total size were not sorted, their order relied on
hashmap iteration.
|
|
Add `&pin (mut|const) T` type position sugar
This adds parser support for `&pin mut T` and `&pin const T` references. These are desugared to `Pin<&mut T>` and `Pin<&T>` in the AST lowering phases.
This PR currently includes #130526 since that one is in the commit queue. Only the most recent commits (bd450027eb4a94b814a7dd9c0fa29102e6361149 and following) are new.
Tracking:
- #130494
r? `@compiler-errors`
|
|
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes #117942
Fixes #121161
Fixes #121263
Fixes #121299
Fixes #121722
Fixes #121799
Fixes #126969
Fixes #131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
|
|
|
|
|
|
This introduce an additional collection of opaques on HIR, as they can no
longer be listed using the free item list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The previous commit updated `rustfmt.toml` appropriately. This commit is
the outcome of running `x fmt --all` with the new formatting options.
|
|
This will allow lowering const params to a dedicated enum variant, rather
than to an `AnonConst` that is later examined during `ty` lowering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
r=compiler-errors
Rename HIR `TypeBinding` to `AssocItemConstraint` and related cleanup
Rename `hir::TypeBinding` and `ast::AssocConstraint` to `AssocItemConstraint` and update all items and locals using the old terminology.
Motivation: The terminology *type binding* is extremely outdated. "Type bindings" not only include constraints on associated *types* but also on associated *constants* (feature `associated_const_equality`) and on RPITITs of associated *functions* (feature `return_type_notation`). Hence the word *item* in the new name. Furthermore, the word *binding* commonly refers to a mapping from a binder/identifier to a "value" for some definition of "value". Its use in "type binding" made sense when equality constraints (e.g., `AssocTy = Ty`) were the only kind of associated item constraint. Nowadays however, we also have *associated type bounds* (e.g., `AssocTy: Bound`) for which the term *binding* doesn't make sense.
---
Old terminology (HIR, rustdoc):
```
`TypeBinding`: (associated) type binding
├── `Constraint`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: (associated) equality constraint (?)
├── `Ty`: (associated) type binding
└── `Const`: associated const equality (constraint)
```
Old terminology (AST, abbrev.):
```
`AssocConstraint`
├── `Bound`
└── `Equality`
├── `Ty`
└── `Const`
```
New terminology (AST, HIR, rustdoc):
```
`AssocItemConstraint`: associated item constraint
├── `Bound`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: associated item equality constraint OR associated item binding (for short)
├── `Ty`: associated type equality constraint OR associated type binding (for short)
└── `Const`: associated const equality constraint OR associated const binding (for short)
```
r? compiler-errors
|
|
|
|
call
|
|
```rust
reuse prefix::{a, b, c}
```
|
|
And avoid duplicating logic for visiting `Item`s with different kinds (regular, associated, foreign).
|
|
Because they're a bit redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop using `box PAT` syntax for deref patterns, as it's misleading and
also causes their semantics being tangled up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This makes it more like `hir::TyKind::Err`, and avoids a
`span_delayed_bug` call in `LoweringContext::lower_ty_direct`.
It also requires adding `ast::TyKind::Dummy`, now that
`ast::TyKind::Err` can't be used for that purpose in the absence of an
error emission.
There are a couple of cases that aren't as neat as I would have liked,
marked with `FIXME` comments.
|
|
|
|
It has 1-to-1 correspondence to its expression id.
Also remove mostly useless `visit_let_expr`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop allowing `rustc::potential_query_instability` in all of
`rustc_passes` and instead allow it on a case-by-case basis if it is
safe. In this case, all instances of the lint are safe to allow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous structs or unions are only allowed in struct field
definitions.
Co-authored-by: carbotaniuman <41451839+carbotaniuman@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
r? @WaffleLapkin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The name makes a lot more sense, and `ty::TyKind` calls it `Ref` already
as well.
|
