Syntactically accept `become` expressions (explicit tail calls experiment)
This adds `ast::ExprKind::Become`, implements parsing and properly gates the feature.
cc `@scottmcm`
try to downgrade Arc -> Lrc -> Rc -> no-Rc in few places
Expecting this be not slower on non-parallel compiler and probably faster on parallel (checked that this PR builds on it).
Don't bail out early when checking invalid `repr` attr
Fixes#111051
An invalid repr delays a bug. If there are other invalid attributes on the item, we emit a warning and exit without re-checking the repr here, so no error is emitted and the delayed bug ICEs
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
Impl `Copy` for most HIR types
This simplifies the invocation of the `arena_types` macro and probably
makes working with HIR nicer in general.
Based on #109588
Run various queries from other queries instead of explicitly in phases
These are just legacy leftovers from when rustc didn't have a query system. While there are more cleanups of this sort that can be done here, I want to land them in smaller steps.
This phased order of query invocations was already a lie, as any query that looks at types (e.g. the wf checks run before) can invoke e.g. const eval which invokes borrowck, which invokes typeck, ...
Fluent, with all the icu4x it brings in, takes quite some time to
compile. `fluent_messages!` is only needed in further downstream rustc
crates, but is blocking more upstream crates like `rustc_index`. By
splitting it out, we allow `rustc_macros` to be compiled earlier, which
speeds up `x check compiler` by about 5 seconds (and even more after the
needless dependency on `serde_json` is removed from
`rustc_data_structures`).
Remove `..` from return type notation
`@nikomatsakis` and I decided that using `..` in the return-type notation syntax is probably overkill.
r? `@eholk` since you reviewed the last one
Since this is piggybacking now totally off of a pre-existing syntax (parenthesized generics), let me know if you need any explanation of the logic here, since it's a bit more complicated now.
incr.comp.: Make sure dependencies are recorded when feeding queries during eval-always queries.
This PR makes sure we don't drop dependency edges when feeding queries during an eval-always query.
Background: During eval-always queries, no dependencies are recorded because the system knows to unconditionally re-evaluate them regardless of any actual dependencies. This works fine for these queries themselves but leads to a problem when feeding other queries: When queries are fed, we set up their dependency edges by copying the current set of dependencies of the feeding query. But because this set is empty for eval-always queries, we record no edges at all -- which has the effect that the fed query instances always look "green" to the system, although they should always be "red".
The fix is to explicitly add a dependency on the artificial "always red" dep-node when feeding during eval-always queries.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108481
Maybe also fixes issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/88488.
cc `@jyn514`
r? `@cjgillot` or `@oli-obk`
Move `doc(primitive)` future incompat warning to `invalid_doc_attributes`
Fixes#88070.
It's been a while since this was turned into a "future incompatible lint" so I think we can now turn it into a hard error without problem.
r? `@jyn514`
Initial support for return type notation (RTN)
See: https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2023/02/13/return-type-notation-send-bounds-part-2/
1. Only supports `T: Trait<method(): Send>` style bounds, not `<T as Trait>::method(): Send`. Checking validity and injecting an implicit binder for all of the late-bound method generics is harder to do for the latter.
* I'd add this in a follow-up.
3. ~Doesn't support RTN in general type position, i.e. no `let x: <T as Trait>::method() = ...`~
* I don't think we actually want this.
5. Doesn't add syntax for "eliding" the function args -- i.e. for now, we write `method(): Send` instead of `method(..): Send`.
* May be a hazard if we try to add it in the future. I'll probably add it in a follow-up later, with a structured suggestion to change `method()` to `method(..)` once we add it.
7. ~I'm not in love with the feature gate name 😺~
* I renamed it to `return_type_notation` ✔️
Follow-up PRs will probably add support for `where T::method(): Send` bounds. I'm not sure if we ever want to support return-type-notation in arbitrary type positions. I may also make the bounds require `..` in the args list later.
r? `@ghost`
And while doing the updates for that, also uses `FieldIdx` in `ProjectionKind::Field` and `TypeckResults::field_indices`.
There's more places that could use it (like `rustc_const_eval` and `LayoutS`), but I tried to keep this PR from exploding to *even more* places.
Part 2/? of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/606
