The `AggregateKind` enum ends up in the final mir `Body`. Currently,
any changes to `AdtDef` (regardless of how significant they are)
will legitimately cause the overall result of `optimized_mir` to change,
invalidating any codegen re-use involving that mir.
This will get worse once we start hashing the `Span` inside `FieldDef`
(which is itself contained in `AdtDef`).
To try to reduce these kinds of invalidations, this commit changes
`AggregateKind::Adt` to store just the `DefId`, instead of the full
`AdtDef`. This allows the result of `optimized_mir` to be unchanged
if the `AdtDef` changes in a way that doesn't actually affect any
of the MIR we build.
Implement let-else type annotations natively
Tracking issue: #87335Fixes#89688, fixes#89807, edit: fixes #89960 as well
As explained in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89688#issuecomment-940405082, the previous desugaring moved the let-else scrutinee into a dummy variable, which meant if you wanted to refer to it again in the else block, it had moved.
This introduces a new hir type, ~~`hir::LetExpr`~~ `hir::Let`, which takes over all the fields of `hir::ExprKind::Let(...)` and adds an optional type annotation. The `hir::Let` is then treated like a `hir::Local` when type checking a function body, specifically:
* `GatherLocalsVisitor` overrides a new `Visitor::visit_let_expr` and does pretty much exactly what it does for `visit_local`, assigning a local type to the `hir::Let` ~~(they could be deduplicated but they are right next to each other, so at least we know they're the same)~~
* It reuses the code in `check_decl_local` to typecheck the `hir::Let`, simply returning 'bool' for the expression type after doing that.
* ~~`FnCtxt::check_expr_let` passes this local type in to `demand_scrutinee_type`, and then imitates check_decl_local's pattern checking~~
* ~~`demand_scrutinee_type` (the blindest change for me, please give this extra scrutiny) uses this local type instead of of creating a new one~~
* ~~Just realised the `check_expr_with_needs` was passing NoExpectation further down, need to pass the type there too. And apparently this Expectation API already exists.~~
Some other misc notes:
* ~~Is the clippy code supposed to be autoformatted? I tried not to give huge diffs but maybe some rustfmt changes simply haven't hit it yet.~~
* in `rustc_ast_lowering/src/block.rs`, I noticed some existing `self.alias_attrs()` calls in `LoweringContext::lower_stmts` seem to be copying attributes from the lowered locals/etc to the statements. Is that right? I'm new at this, I don't know.
rustc_mir_build: reorder bindings
No functional changes intended.
I'm playing around with building compiler components using nightly rust
(2021-11-02) in a non-standard way. I encountered the following error while
trying to build rustc_mir_build:
```
error[E0597]: `wildcard` does not live long enough
--> rust/src/nightly/compiler/rustc_mir_build/src/build/matches/mod.rs:1767:82
|
1767 | let mut otherwise_candidate = Candidate::new(expr_place_builder.clone(), &wildcard, false);
| ^^^^^^^^^ borrowed value does not live long enough
...
1799 | }
| -
| |
| `wildcard` dropped here while still borrowed
| borrow might be used here, when `guard_candidate` is dropped and runs the destructor for type `Candidate<'_, '_>`
|
= note: values in a scope are dropped in the opposite order they are defined
```
I believe this flags an issue that may become an error in the future.
Swapping the order of `wildcard` and `guard_candidate` resolves it.
No functional changes intended.
I'm playing around with building compiler components using nightly rust
(2021-11-02) in a non-standard way. I encountered the following error while
trying to build rustc_mir_build:
```
error[E0597]: `wildcard` does not live long enough
--> rust/src/nightly/compiler/rustc_mir_build/src/build/matches/mod.rs:1767:82
|
1767 | let mut otherwise_candidate = Candidate::new(expr_place_builder.clone(), &wildcard, false);
| ^^^^^^^^^ borrowed value does not live long enough
...
1799 | }
| -
| |
| `wildcard` dropped here while still borrowed
| borrow might be used here, when `guard_candidate` is dropped and runs the destructor for type `Candidate<'_, '_>`
|
= note: values in a scope are dropped in the opposite order they are defined
```
I believe this flags an issue that may become an error in the future.
Swapping the order of `wildcard` and `guard_candidate` resolves it.
Optimize pattern matching
These commits speed up the `match-stress-enum` benchmark, which is very artificial, but the changes are simple enough that it's probably worth doing.
r? `@Nadrieril`
Remove hir::map::blocks and use FnKind instead
The principal tool is `FnLikeNode`, which is not often used and can be easily implemented using `rustc_hir::intravisit::FnKind`.
This performs a substitution of code following the pattern:
let <id> = if let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
To simplify it to:
let <pat> = ... { identity } else { ... : ! };
By adopting the let_else feature.
Add test cases for unstable variants
Add test cases for doc hidden variants
Move is_doc_hidden to method on TyCtxt
Add unstable variants test to reachable-patterns ui test
Rename reachable-patterns -> omitted-patterns
Normalize after substituting via `field.ty()`
Back in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/72476 I hadn't understood where the problem was coming from, and only worked around the issue. What happens is that calling `field.ty()` on a field of a generic struct substitutes the appropriate generics but doesn't normalize the resulting type.
As a consumer of types I'm surprised that one would substitute without normalizing, feels like a footgun, so I added a comment.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89393.
fix(lint): don't suggest refutable patterns to "fix" irrefutable bind
In function arguments and let bindings, do not suggest changing `C` to `Foo::C` unless `C` is the only variant of `Foo`, because it won't work.
The general warning is still kept, because code like this is confusing.
Fixes#88730
p.s. `src/test/ui/lint/lint-uppercase-variables.rs` already tests the one-variant case.
Use larger span for adjustment THIR expressions
Currently, we use a relatively 'small' span for THIR
expressions generated by an 'adjustment' (e.g. an autoderef,
autoborrow, unsizing). As a result, if a borrow generated
by an adustment ends up causing a borrowcheck error, for example:
```rust
let mut my_var = String::new();
let my_ref = &my_var
my_var.push('a');
my_ref;
```
then the span for the mutable borrow may end up referring
to only the base expression (e.g. `my_var`), rather than
the method call which triggered the mutable borrow
(e.g. `my_var.push('a')`)
Due to a quirk of the MIR borrowck implementation,
this doesn't always get exposed in migration mode,
but it does in many cases.
This commit makes THIR building consistently use 'larger'
spans for adjustment expressions. These spans are recoded
when we first create the adjustment during typecheck. For
example, an autoref adjustment triggered by a method call
will record the span of the entire method call.
The intent of this change it make it clearer to users
when it's the specific way in which a variable is
used (for example, in a method call) that produdes
a borrowcheck error. For example, an error message
claiming that a 'mutable borrow occurs here' might
be confusing if it just points at a usage of a variable
(e.g. `my_var`), when no `&mut` is in sight. Pointing
at the entire expression should help to emphasize
that the method call itself is responsible for
the mutable borrow.
In several cases, this makes the `#![feature(nll)]` diagnostic
output match up exactly with the default (migration mode) output.
As a result, several `.nll.stderr` files end up getting removed
entirely.
In function arguments and let bindings, do not suggest changing `C` to `Foo::C`
unless `C` is the only variant of `Foo`, because it won't work.
The general warning is still kept, because code like this is confusing.
Fixes#88730
Add an intermediate representation to exhaustiveness checking
The exhaustiveness checking algorithm keeps deconstructing patterns into a `Constructor` and some `Fields`, but does so a bit all over the place. This PR introduces a new representation for patterns that already has that information, so we only compute it once at the start.
I find this makes code easier to follow. In particular `DeconstructedPat::specialize` is a lot simpler than what happened before, and more closely matches the description of the algorithm. I'm also hoping this could help for the project of librarifying exhaustiveness for rust_analyzer since it decouples the algorithm from `rustc_middle::Pat`.
Now `Fields` is just a `Vec` of patterns, with some extra info on the
side to reconstruct patterns when needed. This emphasizes that this
extra info is not central to the algorithm.
