Several compiler functions have `Option<!>` for their return type.
That's odd. The only valid return value is `None`, so why is this type
used?
Because it lets you write certain patterns slightly more concisely. E.g.
if you have these common patterns:
```
let Some(a) = f() else { return };
let Ok(b) = g() else { return };
```
you can shorten them to these:
```
let a = f()?;
let b = g().ok()?;
```
Huh.
An `Option` return type typically designates success/failure. How should
I interpret the type signature of a function that always returns (i.e.
doesn't panic), does useful work (modifying `&mut` arguments), and yet
only ever fails? This idiom subverts the type system for a cute
syntactic trick.
Furthermore, returning `Option<!>` from a function F makes things
syntactically more convenient within F, but makes things worse at F's
callsites. The callsites can themselves use `?` with F but should not,
because they will get an unconditional early return, which is almost
certainly not desirable. Instead the return value should be ignored.
(Note that some of callsites of `process_operand`, `process_immedate`,
`process_assign` actually do use `?`, though the early return doesn't
matter in these cases because nothing of significance comes after those
calls. Ugh.)
When I first saw this pattern I had no idea how to interpret it, and it
took me several minutes of close reading to understand everything I've
written above. I even started a Zulip thread about it to make sure I
understood it properly. "Save a few characters by introducing types so
weird that compiler devs have to discuss it on Zulip" feels like a bad
trade-off to me. This commit replaces all the `Option<!>` return values
and uses `else`/`return` (or something similar) to replace the relevant
`?` uses. The result is slightly more verbose but much easier to
understand.
This keeps it up-to-date by moving from 0.5.6 to 0.5.7. While here I've
additionally updated some other wasm-related dependencies in the
workspace to keep them up-to-date and try to avoid duplicate versions as
well.
The test code did have an inference failure, but that would have failed
on Rust 1.79 and earlier too. Now it is rewritten to be specifically
affected by 1.80's `impl FromIterator<_> for Box<str>`.
This commit fixes an assert in the WASI-specific implementation of
thread sleep to ensure that sleeping for a very large period of time
blocks instead of panicking. This can come up when testing programs that
sleep "forever", for example.
Use a reduced recursion limit in the MIR inliner's cycle breaker
This probably papers over https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128887, but primarily I'm opening this PR because multiple compiler people have thought about making this change which probably means it's a good idea.
r? compiler-errors
Add `needs-unwind` compiletest directive to `libtest-thread-limit` and replace some `Path` with `path` in `run-make`
Part of #121876 and the associated [Google Summer of Code project](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/05/01/gsoc-2024-selected-projects.html).
This PR does two things:
1. Add this to `libtest-thread-limit` ([Why?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128507#issuecomment-2315158014))
```
//@ needs-unwind
// Reason: this should be ignored in cg_clif (Cranelift) CI and anywhere
// else that uses panic=abort.
```
2. Use `path` instead of `Path` to simplify multiple run-make tests.
debug-fmt-detail option
I'd like to propose a new option that makes `#[derive(Debug)]` generate no-op implementations that don't print anything, and makes `{:?}` in format strings a no-op.
There are a couple of motivations for this:
1. A more thorough stripping of debug symbols. Binaries stripped of debug symbols still retain some of them through `Debug` implementations. It's hard to avoid that without compiler's help, because debug formatting can be used in many places, including dependencies, and their loggers, asserts, panics, etc.
* In my testing it gives about 2% binary size reduction on top of all other binary-minimizing best practices (including `panic_immediate_abort`). There are targets like Web WASM or embedded where users pay attention to binary sizes.
* Users distributing closed-source binaries may not want to "leak" any symbol names as a matter of principle.
2. Adds ability to test whether code depends on specifics of the `Debug` format implementation in unwise ways (e.g. trying to get data unavailable via public interface, or using it as a serialization format). Because current Rust's debug implementation doesn't change, there's a risk of it becoming a fragile de-facto API that [won't be possible to change in the future](https://www.hyrumslaw.com/). An option that "breaks" it can act as a [grease](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8701.html).
This implementation is a `-Z fmt-debug=opt` flag that takes:
* `full` — the default, current state.
* `none` — makes derived `Debug` and `{:?}` no-ops. Explicit `impl Debug for T` implementations are left unharmed, but `{:?}` format won't use them, so they may get dead-code eliminated if they aren't invoked directly.
* `shallow` — makes derived `Debug` print only the type's name, without recursing into fields. Fieldless enums print their variant names. `{:?}` works.
The `shallow` option is a compromise between minimizing the `Debug` code, and compatibility. There are popular proc-macro crates that use `Debug::fmt` as a way to convert enum values into their Rust source code.
There's a corresponding `cfg` flag: `#[cfg(fmt_debug = "none")]` that can be used in user code to react to this setting to minimize custom `Debug` implementations or remove unnecessary formatting helper functions.
