| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
rustc_trait_selection
Make InferCtxtExt use a FxIndexMap
This should be faster, because the map is only being used to iterate,
which is supposed to be faster with the IndexMap
Make the user_computed_preds use an IndexMap
It is being used mostly for iteration, so the change shouldn't result in
a perf hit
Make the RegionDeps fields use an IndexMap
This change could be a perf hit. Both `larger` and `smaller` are used
for iteration, but they are also used for insertions.
Make types_without_default_bounds use an IndexMap
It uses extend, but it also iterates and removes items. Not sure if
this will be a perf hit.
Make InferTtxt.reported_trait_errors use an IndexMap
This change brought a lot of other changes. The map seems to have been
mostly used for iteration, so the performance shouldn't suffer.
Add FIXME to change ProvisionalEvaluationCache.map to use an IndexMap
Right now this results in a perf hit. IndexMap doesn't have
the `drain_filter` API, so in `on_completion` we now need to iterate two
times over the map.
|
|
|
|
On later stages, the feature is already stable.
Result of running:
rg -l "feature.let_else" compiler/ src/librustdoc/ library/ | xargs sed -s -i "s#\\[feature.let_else#\\[cfg_attr\\(bootstrap, feature\\(let_else\\)#"
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit 326646074940222d602f3683d0559088690830f4.
This is the revert against master, the beta revert was already done in #100538.
|
|
Stabilize `#![feature(label_break_value)]`
See the stabilization report in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1186213313.
|
|
# Stabilization proposal
The feature was implemented in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/50045 by est31 and has been in nightly since 2018-05-16 (over 4 years now).
There are [no open issues][issue-label] other than the tracking issue. There is a strong consensus that `break` is the right keyword and we should not use `return`.
There have been several concerns raised about this feature on the tracking issue (other than the one about tests, which has been fixed, and an interaction with try blocks, which has been fixed).
1. nrc's original comment about cost-benefit analysis: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422235234
2. joshtriplett's comments about seeing use cases: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422281176
3. withoutboats's comments that Rust does not need more control flow constructs: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-450050630
Many different examples of code that's simpler using this feature have been provided:
- A lexer by rpjohnst which must repeat code without label-break-value: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-422502014
- A snippet by SergioBenitez which avoids using a new function and adding several new return points to a function: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-427628251. This particular case would also work if `try` blocks were stabilized (at the cost of making the code harder to optimize).
- Several examples by JohnBSmith: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-434651395
- Several examples by Centril: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-440154733
- An example by petrochenkov where this is used in the compiler itself to avoid duplicating error checking code: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-443557569
- Amanieu recently provided another example related to complex conditions, where try blocks would not have helped: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1184213006
Additionally, petrochenkov notes that this is strictly more powerful than labelled loops due to macros which accidentally exit a loop instead of being consumed by the macro matchers: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-450246249
nrc later resolved their concern, mostly because of the aforementioned macro problems.
joshtriplett suggested that macros could be able to generate IR directly
(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-451685983) but there are no open RFCs,
and the design space seems rather speculative.
joshtriplett later resolved his concerns, due to a symmetry between this feature and existing labelled break: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-632960804
withoutboats has regrettably left the language team.
joshtriplett later posted that the lang team would consider starting an FCP given a stabilization report: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48594#issuecomment-1111269353
[issue-label]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AF-label_break_value+
## Report
+ Feature gate:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/src/test/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-label_break_value.rs
+ Diagnostics:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6b2d3d5f3cd1e553d87b5496632132565b6779d3/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs#L2629
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L749
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L1001
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/111df9e6eda1d752233482c1309d00d20a4bbf98/compiler/rustc_passes/src/loops.rs#L254
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L2079
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L1569
+ Tests:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_continue.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_unlabeled_break.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_illegal_uses.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/lint/unused_labels.rs
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/run-pass/for-loop-while/label_break_value.rs
## Interactions with other features
Labels follow the hygiene of local variables.
label-break-value is permitted within `try` blocks:
```rust
let _: Result<(), ()> = try {
'foo: {
Err(())?;
break 'foo;
}
};
```
label-break-value is disallowed within closures, generators, and async blocks:
```rust
'a: {
|| break 'a
//~^ ERROR use of unreachable label `'a`
//~| ERROR `break` inside of a closure
}
```
label-break-value is disallowed on [_BlockExpression_]; it can only occur as a [_LoopExpression_]:
```rust
fn labeled_match() {
match false 'b: { //~ ERROR block label not supported here
_ => {}
}
}
macro_rules! m {
($b:block) => {
'lab: $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
unsafe $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
|x: u8| -> () $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here
}
}
fn foo() {
m!({});
}
```
[_BlockExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/block-expr.html
[_LoopExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/loop-expr.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorrect pluralisation of `crate`
|
|
It looks like the last time had left some remaining cfg's -- which made me think
that the stage0 bump was actually successful. This brings us to a released 1.62
beta though.
|
|
Add tests for lint on type dependent on consts
r? `@lcnr`
|
|
Move a bunch of branches together into one if block, for easier reading.
Resolve comments
Attempt to make some branches unreachable [tmp]
Revert unreachable branches
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuation of #94376.
cc #53667
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of clearing out the cache entirely, we store
the intermediate evaluation result into the cache entry.
This accomplishes several things:
* We avoid the performance hit associated with re-evaluating
the sub-obligations
* We avoid causing issues with incremental compilation, since
the final evaluation result is always the same
* We avoid affecting other uses of the same `InferCtxt` which
might care about 'side effects' from processing the sub-obligations
(e,g. region constraints). Only code that is specifically aware
of the new 'complete' code is affected
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Alan Egerton <eggyal@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add rustc lint, warning when iterating over hashmaps
r? rust-lang/wg-incr-comp
|
|
This performs a substitution of code following the pattern:
let <id> = if let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
To simplify it to:
let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
By adopting the let_else feature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rework `on_completion` method so that it removes all
provisional cache entries that are "below" a completed
node (while leaving those entries that are not below
the node).
This corrects an imprecise result that could in turn lead
to an incremental compilation failure. Under the old
scheme, if you had:
* A depends on...
* B depends on A
* C depends on...
* D depends on C
* T: 'static
then the provisional results for A, B, C, and D would all
be entangled. Thus, if A was `EvaluatedToOkModuloRegions`
(because of that final condition), then the result for C and
D would also be demoted to "ok modulo regions".
In reality, though, the result for C depends only on C and itself,
and is not dependent on regions. If we happen to evaluate the
cycle starting from C, we would never reach A, and hence the
result would be "ok".
Under the new scheme, the provisional results for C and D
are moved to the permanent cache immediately and are not affected
by the result of A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rust contains various size checks conditional on target_arch = "x86_64",
but these checks were never intended to apply to
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnux32. Add target_pointer_width = "64" to the
conditions.
|
|
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65798
This is unblocked now that `min_const_generics` has been stabilized
in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79135.
This PR does *not* include the corresponding `IntoIterator` impl,
which is https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65819.
Instead, an iterator can be constructed through the `new` method.
`new` would become unnecessary when `IntoIterator` is implemented
and might be deprecated then, although it will stay stable.
|
|
|
|
Now that we have by-value array iterators...
|
|
Updated html_root_url for compiler crates
Closes #77103
r? @jyn514
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
