Restrict constants in patterns
This implements [RFC 1445](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1445-restrict-constants-in-patterns.md). The primary change is to limit the types of constants used in patterns to those that *derive* `Eq` (note that implementing `Eq` is not sufficient). This has two main effects:
1. Floating point constants are linted, and will eventually be disallowed. This is because floating point constants do not implement `Eq` but only `PartialEq`. This check replaces the existing special case code that aimed to detect the use of `NaN`.
2. Structs and enums must derive `Eq` to be usable within a match.
This is a [breaking-change]: if you encounter a problem, you are most likely using a constant in an expression where the type of the constant is some struct that does not currently implement
`Eq`. Something like the following:
```rust
struct SomeType { ... }
const SOME_CONST: SomeType = ...;
match foo {
SOME_CONST => ...
}
```
The easiest and most future compatible fix is to annotate the type in question with `#[derive(Eq)]` (note that merely *implementing* `Eq` is not enough, it must be *derived*):
```rust
struct SomeType { ... }
const SOME_CONST: SomeType = ...;
match foo {
SOME_CONST => ...
}
```
Another good option is to rewrite the match arm to use an `if` condition (this is also particularly good for floating point types, which implement `PartialEq` but not `Eq`):
```rust
match foo {
c if c == SOME_CONST => ...
}
```
Finally, a third alternative is to tag the type with `#[structural_match]`; but this is not recommended, as the attribute is never expected to be stabilized. Please see RFC #1445 for more details.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/31434
r? @pnkfelix
This is a [breaking-change]: according to RFC #1445, constants used as
patterns must be of a type that *derives* `Eq`. If you encounter a
problem, you are most likely using a constant in an expression where the
type of the constant is some struct that does not currently implement
`Eq`. Something like the following:
```rust
struct SomeType { ... }
const SOME_CONST: SomeType = ...;
match foo {
SOME_CONST => ...
}
```
The easiest and most future compatible fix is to annotate the type in
question with `#[derive(Eq)]` (note that merely *implementing* `Eq` is
not enough, it must be *derived*):
```rust
struct SomeType { ... }
const SOME_CONST: SomeType = ...;
match foo {
SOME_CONST => ...
}
```
Another good option is to rewrite the match arm to use an `if`
condition (this is also particularly good for floating point types,
which implement `PartialEq` but not `Eq`):
```rust
match foo {
c if c == SOME_CONST => ...
}
```
Finally, a third alternative is to tag the type with
`#[structural_match]`; but this is not recommended, as the attribute is
never expected to be stabilized. Please see RFC #1445 for more details.
while I'm at it, remove the "extra caching" that I was doing for no good
reason except laziness. Basically before I was caching at each scope in
the chain, but there's not really a reason to do that, since the cached
entry point at level N is always equal to the last cached exit point
from level N-1.
It's nice to be able to index with a scope-id,
but coherence rules prevent us from implementing
`Index<ScopeId>` for `Vec<ScopeAuxiliary>`, and I'd
prefer that `ScopeAuxiliary` remain in librustc_mir,
just for compilation time reasons.
This was triggered by me wanting to address a use of DUMMY_SP, but
actually I'm not sure what would be a better span -- I guess the span
for the function as a whole.
Automated conversion using the untry tool [1] and the following command:
```
$ find -name '*.rs' -type f | xargs untry
```
at the root of the Rust repo.
[1]: https://github.com/japaric/untry
emit (via debug!) scary message from `fn borrowck_mir` until basic
prototype is in place.
Gather children of move paths and set their kill bits in
dataflow. (Each node has a link to the child that is first among its
siblings.)
Hooked in libgraphviz based rendering, including of borrowck dataflow
state.
doing this well required some refactoring of the code, so I cleaned it
up more generally (adding comments to explain what its trying to do
and how it is doing it).
Update: this newer version addresses most review comments (at least
the ones that were largely mechanical changes), but I left the more
interesting revisions to separate followup commits (in this same PR).
typestrong const integers
~~It would be great if someone could run crater on this PR, as this has a high danger of breaking valid code~~ Crater ran. Good to go.
----
So this PR does a few things:
1. ~~const eval array values when const evaluating an array expression~~
2. ~~const eval repeat value when const evaluating a repeat expression~~
3. ~~const eval all struct and tuple fields when evaluating a struct/tuple expression~~
4. remove the `ConstVal::Int` and `ConstVal::Uint` variants and replace them with a single enum (`ConstInt`) which has variants for all integral types
* `usize`/`isize` are also enums with variants for 32 and 64 bit. At creation and various usage steps there are assertions in place checking if the target bitwidth matches with the chosen enum variant
5. enum discriminants (`ty::Disr`) are now `ConstInt`
6. trans has its own `Disr` type now (newtype around `u64`)
This obviously can't be done without breaking changes (the ones that are noticable in stable)
We could probably write lints that find those situations and error on it for a cycle or two. But then again, those situations are rare and really bugs imo anyway:
```rust
let v10 = 10 as i8;
let v4 = 4 as isize;
assert_eq!(v10 << v4 as usize, 160 as i8);
```
stops compiling because 160 is not a valid i8
```rust
struct S<T, S> {
a: T,
b: u8,
c: S
}
let s = S { a: 0xff_ff_ff_ffu32, b: 1, c: 0xaa_aa_aa_aa as i32 };
```
stops compiling because `0xaa_aa_aa_aa` is not a valid i32
----
cc @eddyb @pnkfelix
related: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1071
