Clippy uses `ExprUseVisitor` and atleast in some cases it runs
after writeback.
We currently don't writeback the min_capture results of closure
capture analysis since no place within the compiler itself uses it.
In the short term to fix clippy we add a fallback when walking captures
of a closure to check if closure_capture analysis has any entries in it.
Writeback for closure_min_captures will be implemented in
rust-lang/project-rfc-2229#18
Implement destructuring assignment for tuples
This is the first step towards implementing destructuring assignment (RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2909, tracking issue: #71126). This PR is the first part of #71156, which was split up to allow for easier review.
Quick summary: This change allows destructuring the LHS of an assignment if it's a (possibly nested) tuple.
It is implemented via a desugaring (AST -> HIR lowering) as follows:
```rust
(a,b) = (1,2)
```
... becomes ...
```rust
{
let (lhs0,lhs1) = (1,2);
a = lhs0;
b = lhs1;
}
```
Thanks to `@varkor` who helped with the implementation, particularly around default binding modes.
r? `@petrochenkov`
Provide diagnostic suggestion in ExprUseVisitor Delegate
The [Delegate trait](981346fc07/compiler/rustc_typeck/src/expr_use_visitor.rs (L28-L38)) currently use `PlaceWithHirId` which is composed of Hir `Place` and the
corresponding expression id.
Even though this is an accurate way of expressing how a Place is used,
it can cause confusion during diagnostics.
Eg:
```
let arr : [String; 5];
let [a, ...] = arr;
^^^ E1 ^^^ = ^^E2^^
```
Here `arr` is moved because of the binding created E1. However, when we
point to E1 in diagnostics with the message `arr` was moved, it can be
confusing. Rather we would like to report E2 to the user.
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/20
r? `@ghost`
The [Delegate
trait](981346fc07/compiler/rustc_typeck/src/expr_use_visitor.rs (L28-L38))
currently use `PlaceWithHirId` which is composed of Hir `Place` and the
corresponding expression id.
Even though this is an accurate way of expressing how a Place is used,
it can cause confusion during diagnostics.
Eg:
```
let arr : [String; 5];
let [a, ...] = arr;
^^^ E1 ^^^ = ^^E2^^
```
Here `arr` is moved because of the binding created E1. However, when we
point to E1 in diagnostics with the message `arr` was moved, it can be
confusing. Rather we would like to report E2 to the user.
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/project-rfc-2229/issues/20
Always record reference to binding in match if guards
When encountering a binding from a `match` pattern in its `if` guard when computing a generator's interior types, we must always record the type of a reference to the binding because of how `if` guards are lowered to MIR. This was missed in #75213 because the binding in that test case was autorefed and we recorded that adjusted type anyway.
Fixes#78366
Iterate over the smaller list
If there are two lists of different sizes,
iterating over the smaller list and then
looking up in the larger list is cheaper
than vice versa, because lookups scale
sublinearly.
check object safety of generic constants
As `Self` can only be effectively used in constants with `const_evaluatable_checked` this should not matter outside of it.
Implements the first item of #72219
> Object safety interactions with constants
r? @oli-obk for now cc @nikomatsakis
Suggest calling await on method call and field access
When encountering a failing method or field resolution on a `Future`,
look at the `Output` and try the same operation on it. If successful,
suggest calling `.await` on the `Future`.
This had already been introduced in #72784, but at some point they
stopped working.
Built on top of #78214, only last commit is relevant.
r? @oli-obk
Add compiler support for LLVM's x86_64 ERMSB feature
This change is needed for compiler-builtins to check for this feature
when implementing memcpy/memset. See:
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/365
Without this change, the following code compiles, but does nothing:
```rust
#[cfg(target_feature = "ermsb")]
pub unsafe fn ermsb_memcpy() { ... }
```
The change just does compile-time detection. I think that runtime
detection will have to come in a follow-up CL to std-detect.
Like all the CPU feature flags, this just references #44839
Signed-off-by: Joe Richey <joerichey@google.com>
When encountering a failing method or field resolution on a `Future`,
look at the `Output` and try the same operation on it. If successful,
suggest calling `.await` on the `Future`.
This had already been introduced in #72784, but at some point they
stopped working.
This change is needed for compiler-builtins to check for this feature
when implementing memcpy/memset. See:
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-builtins/pull/365
The change just does compile-time detection. I think that runtime
detection will have to come in a follow-up CL to std-detect.
Like all the CPU feature flags, this just references #44839
Signed-off-by: Joe Richey <joerichey@google.com>
Rollup of 10 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #74477 (`#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]` in sys/wasm)
- #77836 (transmute_copy: explain that alignment is handled correctly)
- #78126 (Properly define va_arg and va_list for aarch64-apple-darwin)
- #78137 (Initialize tracing subscriber in compiletest tool)
- #78161 (Add issue template link to IRLO)
- #78214 (Tweak match arm semicolon removal suggestion to account for futures)
- #78247 (Fix#78192)
- #78252 (Add codegen test for #45964)
- #78268 (Do not try to report on closures to avoid ICE)
- #78295 (Add some regression tests)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
Tweak match arm semicolon removal suggestion to account for futures
* Tweak and extend "use `.await`" suggestions
* Suggest removal of semicolon on prior match arm
* Account for `impl Future` when suggesting semicolon removal
* Silence some errors when encountering `await foo()?` as can't be certain what the intent was
*Thanks to https://twitter.com/a_hoverbear/status/1318960787105353728 for pointing this out!*
The associated_items(def_id) call
allocates internally.
Previously, we'd have called it for
each pair, so we'd have had O(n^2)
many calls. By precomputing the
associated items, we avoid
repeating so many allocations.
The only instance where this precomputation
would be a regression is if there's only
one inherent impl block for the type,
as the inner loop then doesn't run.
In that instance, we just early return.
Also, use SmallVec to avoid doing an
allocation at all if the number is small
(the case for most impl blocks out there).
