default binding modes: add pat_binding_modes
This PR kicks off the implementation of the [default binding modes RFC][1] by
introducing the `pat_binding_modes` typeck table mentioned in the [mentoring
instructions][2].
It is a WIP because I wasn't able to avoid all uses of the binding modes as
not all call sites are close enough to the typeck tables. I added marker
comments to any line matching `BindByRef|BindByValue` so that reviewers
are aware of all of them.
I will look into changing the HIR (as suggested in [2]) to not carry a
`BindingMode` unless one was explicitly specified, but this PR is good for
a first round of comments.
The actual changes are quite small and CI will fail due to overlong lines
caused by the marker comments.
See #42640.
cc @nikomatsakis
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2005
[2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42640#issuecomment-313535089
CFG construction takes a large amount of time and memory, especially for
large constants. If such a constant contains no actions on lvalues, it
can't have borrowck problems and can be ignored by it.
This removes the 4.9GB borrowck peak from #36799. It seems that HIR had
grown by 300MB and MIR had grown by 500MB from the last massif
collection and that remains to be investigated, but this at least shaves
the borrowck peak.
This PR kicks off the implementation of the [default binding modes RFC][1] by
introducing the `pat_binding_modes` typeck table mentioned in the [mentoring
instructions][2].
`pat_binding_modes` is populated in `librustc_typeck/check/_match.rs` and
used wherever the HIR would be scraped prior to this PR. Unfortunately, one
blemish, namely a two callers to `contains_explicit_ref_binding`, remains.
This will likely have to be removed when the second part of [1], the
`pat_adjustments` table, is tackled. Appropriate comments have been added.
See #42640.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2005
[2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42640#issuecomment-313535089
Also, remove the explicit code detecting borrows over a yield. It
turns out not to be necessary -- any such borrow winds up with a
lifetime that is part of the generator type, and therefore which will
outlive the generator expression itself, which yields an
`err_out_of_scope`. So instead we intercept those errors and display
them in a nicer way.
Extended error message for mut borrow conflicts in loops
RFC issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/2080
The error message for multiple mutable borrows on the same value over loop iterations now makes it clear that the conflict comes from the borrow outlasting the loop. The wording of the error is based on the special case of the moved-value error for a value moved in a loop. Following the example of that error, the code remains the same for the special case.
This is mainly because I felt the current message is confusing in the loop case : https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43437. It's not clear that the two conflicting borrows are in different iterations of the loop, and instead it just looks like the compiler has an issue with a single line.
Error message now makes clear that mutable borrow conflicts on a single
value in a loop body is caused by the borrow outlasting a single pass of
the loop.
Loop conflicts are detected by seeing when two borrow locations are the
same - which indicates the same code being run more than once.
Turn `elaborate_drops` and `rustc_peek` implementations into MIR
passes that also live in `rustc_mir` crate.
Rewire things so `rustc_driver` uses the `ElaborateDrops` from
`rustc_mir` crate.
Replaced by adding extra imports, adding hidden code (`# ...`), modifying
examples to be runnable (sorry Homura), specifying non-Rust code, and
converting to should_panic, no_run, or compile_fail.
Remaining "```ignore"s received an explanation why they are being ignored.
MIR EndRegion Statements (was MIR dataflow for Borrows)
This PR adds an `EndRegion` statement to MIR (where the `EndRegion` statement is what terminates a borrow).
An earlier version of the PR implemented a dataflow analysis on borrow expressions, but I am now factoring that into a follow-up PR so that reviewing this one is easier. (And also because there are some revisions I want to make to that dataflow code, but I want this PR to get out of WIP status...)
This is a baby step towards MIR borrowck. I just want to get the review process going while I independently work on the remaining steps.
Also, I removed the `continue;` statement. I don't think it makes
a difference whether its there or not, but having it there confuses things
when the actual goal was to side-step the assertion in the default case.
* Emit `EndRegion` for every code-extent for which we observe a
borrow. To do this, we needed to thread source info back through
to `fn in_scope`, which makes this commit a bit more painful than
one might have expected.
* There is `end_region` emission in `Builder::pop_scope` and in
`Builder::exit_scope`; the first handles falling out of a scope
normally, the second handles e.g. `break`.
* Remove `EndRegion` statements during the erase_regions mir
transformation.
* Preallocate the terminator block, and throw an `Unreachable` marker
on it from the outset. Then overwrite that Terminator as necessary
on demand.
* Instead of marking the scope as needs_cleanup after seeing a
borrow, just treat every scope in the chain as being part of the
diverge_block (after any *one* of them has separately signalled
that it needs cleanup, e.g. due to having a destructor to run).
* Allow for resume terminators to be patched when looking up drop flags.
(In particular, `MirPatch::new` has an explicit code path,
presumably previously unreachable, that patches up such resume
terminators.)
* Make `Scope` implement `Debug` trait.
* Expanded a stray comment: we do not emit StorageDead on diverging
paths, but that end behavior might not be desirable.
Explain why a closure is `FnOnce` in closure errors.
Issue: #42065
@nikomatsakis Am I going the right direction with this?
~~I am stuck in a few bits:~~
~~1. How to trace the code to get the upvar instead of the original variable's span?~~
~~2. How to find the node id of the upvar where the move occured?~~
Translate array drop glue using MIR
I was a bit lazy here and used a usize-based index instead of a pointer iteration. Do you think this is important @eddyb?
r? @eddyb
