| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
Previously, async constructs would be lowered to "normal" generators,
with an additional `from_generator` / `GenFuture` shim in between to
convert from `Generator` to `Future`.
The compiler will now special-case these generators internally so that
async constructs will *directly* implement `Future` without the need
to go through the `from_generator` / `GenFuture` shim.
The primary motivation for this change was hiding this implementation
detail in stack traces and debuginfo, but it can in theory also help
the optimizer as there is less abstractions to see through.
|
|
|
|
Clippy has an internal lint that checks for the usage of hardcoded def
paths and suggests to replace them with a lang or diagnostic item, if
possible. This was implemented with a hack, by getting all the variants
of the `LangItem` enum and then index into it with the position of the
`LangItem` in the `items` list. This is no longer possible, because the
`items` list can't be accessed anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Track where diagnostics were created.
This implements the `-Ztrack-diagnostics` flag, which uses `#[track_caller]` to track where diagnostics are created. It is meant as a debugging tool much like `-Ztreat-err-as-bug`.
For example, the following code...
```rust
struct A;
struct B;
fn main(){
let _: A = B;
}
```
...now emits the following error message:
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src\main.rs:5:16
|
5 | let _: A = B;
| - ^ expected struct `A`, found struct `B`
| |
| expected due to this
-Ztrack-diagnostics: created at compiler\rustc_infer\src\infer\error_reporting\mod.rs:2275:31
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixup a few tests needing asm support
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uplift `clippy::for_loops_over_fallibles` lint into rustc
This PR, as the title suggests, uplifts [`clippy::for_loops_over_fallibles`] lint into rustc. This lint warns for code like this:
```rust
for _ in Some(1) {}
for _ in Ok::<_, ()>(1) {}
```
i.e. directly iterating over `Option` and `Result` using `for` loop.
There are a number of suggestions that this PR adds (on top of what clippy suggested):
1. If the argument (? is there a better name for that expression) of a `for` loop is a `.next()` call, then we can suggest removing it (or rather replacing with `.by_ref()` to allow iterator being used later)
```rust
for _ in iter.next() {}
// turns into
for _ in iter.by_ref() {}
```
2. (otherwise) We can suggest using `while let`, this is useful for non-iterator, iterator-like things like [async] channels
```rust
for _ in rx.recv() {}
// turns into
while let Some(_) = rx.recv() {}
```
3. If the argument type is `Result<impl IntoIterator, _>` and the body has a `Result<_, _>` type, we can suggest using `?`
```rust
for _ in f() {}
// turns into
for _ in f()? {}
```
4. To preserve the original behavior and clear intent, we can suggest using `if let`
```rust
for _ in f() {}
// turns into
if let Some(_) = f() {}
```
(P.S. `Some` and `Ok` are interchangeable depending on the type)
I still feel that the lint wording/look is somewhat off, so I'll be happy to hear suggestions (on how to improve suggestions :D)!
Resolves #99272
[`clippy::for_loops_over_fallibles`]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#for_loops_over_fallibles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stabilize const `BTree{Map,Set}::new`
The FCP was completed in #71835.
Since `len` and `is_empty` are not const stable yet, this also creates a new feature for them since they previously used the same `const_btree_new` feature.
|
|
Since `len` and `is_empty` are not const stable yet, this also
creates a new feature for them since they previously used the same
`const_btree_new` feature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
`BindingAnnotation` refactor
* `ast::BindingMode` is deleted and replaced with `hir::BindingAnnotation` (which is moved to `ast`)
* `BindingAnnotation` is changed from an enum to a tuple struct e.g. `BindingAnnotation(ByRef::No, Mutability::Mut)`
* Associated constants added for convenience `BindingAnnotation::{NONE, REF, MUT, REF_MUT}`
One goal is to make it more clear that `BindingAnnotation` merely represents syntax `ref mut` and not the actual binding mode. This was especially confusing since we had `ast::BindingMode`->`hir::BindingAnnotation`->`thir::BindingMode`.
I wish there were more symmetry between `ByRef` and `Mutability` (variant) naming (maybe `Mutable::Yes`?), and I also don't love how long the name `BindingAnnotation` is, but this seems like the best compromise. Ideas welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 10 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #100787 (Pretty printing give proper error message without panic)
- #100838 (Suggest moving redundant generic args of an assoc fn to its trait)
- #100844 (migrate rustc_query_system to use SessionDiagnostic)
- #101140 (Update Clippy)
- #101161 (Fix uintended diagnostic caused by `drain(..)`)
- #101165 (Use more `into_iter` rather than `drain(..)`)
- #101229 (Link “? operator” to relevant chapter in The Book)
- #101230 (lint: avoid linting diag functions with diag lints)
- #101236 (Avoid needless buffer zeroing in `std::sys::windows::fs`)
- #101240 (Fix a typo on `wasm64-unknown-unknown` doc)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strengthen invalid_value lint to forbid uninit primitives, adjust docs to say that's UB
For context: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/66151#issuecomment-1174477404=
This does not make it a FCW, but it does explicitly state in the docs that uninit integers are UB.
This also doesn't affect any runtime behavior, uninit u32's will still successfully be created through mem::uninitialized.
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit 326646074940222d602f3683d0559088690830f4.
This is the revert against master, the beta revert was already done in #100538.
|
|
# 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add test for and fix rust-lang/rust-clippy#9131
This lint seems to have been broken by #98446 -- but of course, there was no clippy test for this case at the time.
`expr.span.ctxt().outer_expn_data()` now has `MacroKind::Derive` instead of `MacroKind::Attr` for something like:
```
#[derive(Clone, Debug)]
pub struct UnderscoreInStruct {
_foo: u32,
}
```
---
changelog: none
closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9131
|
|
Shorten def_span of closures to just their header
Continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93967.
|
