This PR is a rebase of the original PR by @eddyb https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/21836 with some unrebasable parts manually reapplied, feature gate added + type equality restriction added as described below.
This implementation is partial because the type equality restriction is applied to all type ascription expressions and not only those in lvalue contexts. Thus, all difficulties with detection of these contexts and translation of coercions having effect in runtime are avoided.
So, you can't write things with coercions like `let slice = &[1, 2, 3]: &[u8];`. It obviously makes type ascription less useful than it should be, but it's still much more useful than not having type ascription at all.
In particular, things like `let v = something.iter().collect(): Vec<_>;` and `let u = t.into(): U;` work as expected and I'm pretty happy with these improvements alone.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/23416
Instead of `ast::Ident`, bindings, paths and labels in HIR now keep a new structure called `hir::Ident` containing mtwt-renamed `name` and the original not-renamed `unhygienic_name`. `name` is supposed to be used by default, `unhygienic_name` is rarely used.
This is not ideal, but better than the status quo for two reasons:
- MTWT tables can be cleared immediately after lowering to HIR
- This is less bug-prone, because it is impossible now to forget applying `mtwt::resolve` to a name. It is still possible to use `name` instead of `unhygienic_name` by mistake, but `unhygienic_name`s are used only in few very special circumstances, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Besides name resolution `unhygienic_name` is used in some lints and debuginfo. `unhygienic_name` can be very well approximated by "reverse renaming" `token::intern(name.as_str())` or even plain string `name.as_str()`, except that it would break gensyms like `iter` in desugared `for` loops. This approximation is likely good enough for lints and debuginfo, but not for name resolution, unfortunately (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/27639), so `unhygienic_name` has to be kept.
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/29782
r? @nrc
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/28692
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/28992
Fixes some other similar issues (see the tests)
[breaking-change], needs crater run (cc @brson or @alexcrichton )
The pattern with parens `UnitVariant(..)` for unit variants seems to be popular in rustc (see the second commit), but mostly used by one person (@nikomatsakis), according to git blame. If it causes breakage on crates.io I'll add an exceptional case for it.
For now, this pass does some easy transformations, like eliminating
empty blocks that just jump to another block, some trivial
conversion of If terminators into Gotos and removal of dead blocks.
r? @nikomatsakis
For now, this pass does some easy transformations, like eliminating
empty blocks that just jump to another block, some trivial
conversion of If terminators into Gotos and removal of dead blocks.
In previous PRs, I changed the match desugaring to generate more efficient code for ints/chars and the like. But this doesn't help when you're matching strings, ranges, or other crazy complex things (leading to #29740). This commit restructures match desugaring *yet again* to handle that case better -- basically we now degenerate to an if-else-if chain in such cases.
~~Note that this builds on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/29763 which will hopefully land soon. So ignore the first few commits.~~ landed now
r? @Aatch since he's been reviewing the other commits in this series
large matches that fallback to Eq. When we encounter a case where the
test being performed does not inform the candidate at all, we just stop
testing the candidates at that point, rather than adding the candidate
to both outcomes. The former behavior was not WRONG, but it generated a
lot of code, whereas this new behavior degenerates to an if-else-if
tree.
Fixes#29740.
before we iterated over the test and each outcome thereof, and then
checked processed every candidate against this outcome, we now organize
the walk differently. Instead, we visit each candidate and say "Here is
the test being performed. Figure out the resulting candidates for each
possible outcome and add yourself into the appropriate places."
Introduce a `SwitchInt` and restructure pattern matching to collect integers and characters into one master switch. This is aimed at #29227, but is not a complete fix. Whereas before we generated an if-else-if chain and, at least on my machine, just failed to compile, we now spend ~9sec compiling `rustc_abuse`. AFAICT this is basically just due to a need for more micro-optimization of the matching process: perf shows a fair amount of time just spent iterating over the candidate list. Still, it seemed worth opening a PR with this step alone, since it's a big step forward.
