| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|
This reverts commit b4a6f597934f16f89e27058a32a514c9572f148f.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This commit moves well-formedness check for the
`UserTypeAnnotation::Ty(..)` case from always running to only when the
code is reachable. This solves the ICE that resulted from
`src/test/ui/issue-54943-1.rs` (a minimal repro of `dropck-eyepatch`
run-pass tests that failed).
The main well-formedness check that was intended to be run despite
unreachable code still is, that being the
`UserTypeAnnotation::TypeOf(..)` case. Before this PR, the other case
wasn't being checked at all.
It is possible to fix this ICE while still always checking
well-formedness for the `UserTypeAnnotation::Ty(..)` case but that
solution will ICE in unreachable code for that case, the diff for
that change [can be found here](0).
[0]: https://gist.github.com/davidtwco/f9751ffd9c0508f7251c0f17adc3af53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This commit adds an `ImplicitSelfKind` to the HIR and the MIR that keeps
track of whether a implicit self argument is immutable by-value, mutable
by-value, immutable reference or mutable reference so that the addition
of the `mut` keyword can be suggested for the immutable by-value case.
|
|
We are now carrying the user-given type through MIR, so it makes sense
that this would change the hash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stabilize the syntax `a..=b` and `..=b`.
|
|
|
|
Fixes the hash test to recognize that MirValidated can change when changing
around labels, and add a new test that makes sure we're lowering loop statements
correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also added some comments explaining what is going on. In short, the
changes in question do not, in fact, affect the`TypeckTables` in any
semantic way. However, altering the order of lowering can cause it
appear to affect the `TypeckTables`: if we lower generics before the
body, then the `HirId` for things in the body will be affected. In
this case, we are now lowering the generics etc
*after* the body, so the hash no longer changes. This seems good.
|
|
update let-expressions hash test to use `except`
A part of #44924, this PR updated let-expressions test using `except`.
cc @michaelwoerister
r? @nikomatsakis
|
|
incr: Update hash tests to use `except`-style checking
Part of #44924
r? @michaelwoerister
|
|
|
|
fitzgen:update-unary-and-binary-exprs-test-to-use-incr-except, r=michaelwoerister
incr: Make `unary_and_binary_exprs.rs` use `except`-style incremental checking
Part of #44924
r? @michaelwoerister
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part of #44924
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
incr.comp.: Verify stability of incr. comp. hashes and clean up various other things.
The main contribution of this PR is that it adds the `-Z incremental-verify-ich` functionality. Normally, when the red-green tracking system determines that a certain query result has not changed, it does not re-compute the incr. comp. hash (ICH) for that query result because that hash is already known. `-Z incremental-verify-ich` tells the compiler to re-hash the query result and compare the new hash against the cached hash. This is a rather thorough way of
- testing hashing implementation stability,
- finding missing `[input]` annotations on `DepNodes`, and
- finding missing read-edges,
since both a missed read and a missing `[input]` annotation can lead to something being marked as green instead of red and thus will have a different hash than it should have.
Case in point, implementing this verification logic and activating it for all `src/test/incremental` tests has revealed several such oversights, all of which are fixed in this PR.
r? @nikomatsakis
|
|
|
|
|
|
DefaultImpl is a highly confusing name for what we now call auto impls,
as in `impl Send for ..`. The name auto impl is not formally decided
but for sanity anything is better than `DefaultImpl` which refers
neither to `default impl` nor to `impl Default`.
|
|
|
|
Now that we are visiting things in a different order during lowering,
adding parameters winds up affecting the HirIds assigned to thinks in
the method body, whereas it didn't before. We could fix this by
reordering the order in which we visit `generics` during lowering, but
this feels very fragile. Seems better to just let typeck tables be
dirty here.
|