| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
Preliminary cleanup of `WitnessPat` hoisting/printing
Follow-up to #128430.
The eventual goal is to remove `print::Pat` entirely, but in the course of working towards that I made so many small improvements that it seems wise to let those be reviewed/merged on their own first.
Best reviewed commit-by-commit, most of which should be pretty simple and straightforward.
r? ``@Nadrieril``
|
|
|
|
We can replace some tricky iterator-mutation code with a much simpler version
that uses `while let` to shrink a slice.
We also check whether a subpattern would be a wildcard _before_ hoisting it,
which will be very useful when trying to get rid of `print::PatKind` later.
|
|
|
|
There are some comments describing multiple subsequent `use` items. When
the big `use` reformatting happens some of these `use` items will be
reordered, possibly moving them away from the comment. With this
additional level of formatting it's not really feasible to have comments
of this type. This commit removes them in various ways:
- merging separate `use` items when appropriate;
- inserting blank lines between the comment and the first `use` item;
- outright deletion (for comments that are relatively low-value);
- adding a separate "top-level" comment.
We also entirely skip formatting for four library files that contain
nothing but `pub use` re-exports, where reordering would be painful.
|
|
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The old name came from a time where I wanted to reuse it for
differentiating wildcards from bindings. I don't plan to do this
anymore.
|
|
|
|
recursion in pattern matching
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Invert diagnostic lints.
That is, change `diagnostic_outside_of_impl` and `untranslatable_diagnostic` from `allow` to `deny`, because more than half of the compiler has been converted to use translated diagnostics.
This commit removes more `deny` attributes than it adds `allow` attributes, which proves that this change is warranted.
r? ````@davidtwco````
|
|
pattern_analysis: use a plain `Vec` in `DeconstructedPat`
The use of an arena-allocated slice in `DeconstructedPat` dates to when we needed the arena anyway for lifetime reasons. Now that we don't, I'm thinking that if `thir::Pat` can use plain old `Vec`s, maybe so can I.
r? ```@ghost```
|
|
That is, change `diagnostic_outside_of_impl` and
`untranslatable_diagnostic` from `allow` to `deny`, because more than
half of the compiler has be converted to use translated diagnostics.
This commit removes more `deny` attributes than it adds `allow`
attributes, which proves that this change is warranted.
|
|
|
|
Since the only use of `TypeCx::bug` is in `Constructor::is_covered_by`,
it is tempting to return `false` instead of `Err()`, but that would
cause "non-exhaustive match" false positives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add the `min_exhaustive_patterns` feature gate
## Motivation
Pattern-matching on empty types is tricky around unsafe code. For that reason, current stable rust conservatively requires arms for empty types in all but the simplest case. It has long been the intention to allow omitting empty arms when it's safe to do so. The [`exhaustive_patterns`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51085) feature allows the omission of all empty arms, but hasn't been stabilized because that was deemed dangerous around unsafe code.
## Proposal
This feature aims to stabilize an uncontroversial subset of exhaustive_patterns. Namely: when `min_exhaustive_patterns` is enabled and the data we're matching on is guaranteed to be valid by rust's operational semantics, then we allow empty arms to be omitted. E.g.:
```rust
let x: Result<T, !> = foo();
match x { // ok
Ok(y) => ...,
}
let Ok(y) = x; // ok
```
If the place is not guaranteed to hold valid data (namely ptr dereferences, ref dereferences (conservatively) and union field accesses), then we keep stable behavior i.e. we (usually) require arms for the empty cases.
```rust
unsafe {
let ptr: *const Result<u32, !> = ...;
match *ptr {
Ok(x) => { ... }
Err(_) => { ... } // still required
}
}
let foo: Result<u32, &!> = ...;
match foo {
Ok(x) => { ... }
Err(&_) => { ... } // still required because of the dereference
}
unsafe {
let ptr: *const ! = ...;
match *ptr {} // already allowed on stable
}
```
Note that we conservatively consider that a valid reference can point to invalid data, hence we don't allow arms of type `&!` and similar cases to be omitted. This could eventually change depending on [opsem decisions](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/413). Whenever opsem is undecided on a case, we conservatively keep today's stable behavior.
I proposed this behavior in the [`never_patterns`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118155) feature gate but it makes sense on its own and could be stabilized more quickly. The two proposals nicely complement each other.
## Unresolved Questions
Part of the question is whether this requires an RFC. I'd argue this doesn't need one since there is no design question beyond the intent to omit unreachable patterns, but I'm aware the problem can be framed in ways that require design (I'm thinking of the [original never patterns proposal](https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2018/08/13/never-patterns-exhaustive-matching-and-uninhabited-types-oh-my/), which would frame this behavior as "auto-nevering" happening).
EDIT: I initially proposed a future-compatibility lint as part of this feature, I don't anymore.
|
|
pattern_analysis: Reuse most of the `DeconstructedPat` `Debug` impl
The `DeconstructedPat: Debug` is best-effort because we'd need `tcx` to get things like field names etc. Since rust-analyzer has a similar constraint, this PR moves most the impl to be shared between the two. While I was at it I also fixed a nit in the `IntRange: Debug` impl.
r? `@compiler-errors`
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since we always clone and allocate the types somewhere else ourselves,
no need to ask for `Cx` to do the allocation.
|
|
|
|
pat_analysis: Don't rely on contiguous `VariantId`s outside of rustc
Today's pattern_analysis uses `BitSet` and `IndexVec` on the provided enum variant ids, which only makes sense if these ids count the variants from 0. In rust-analyzer, the variant ids are global interning ids, which would make `BitSet` and `IndexVec` ridiculously wasteful. In this PR I add some shims to use `FxHashSet`/`FxHashMap` instead outside of rustc.
r? ```@compiler-errors```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use an explicit `Option` instead of requiring a `Default` bound
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
