This removes another special case of Switch by replacing it with the more general SwitchInt. While
this is more clunky currently, there’s no reason we can’t make it nice (and efficient) to use.
Perform lifetime elision (more) syntactically, before type-checking.
The *initial* goal of this patch was to remove the (contextual) `&RegionScope` argument passed around `rustc_typeck::astconv` and allow converting arbitrary (syntactic) `hir::Ty` to (semantic) `Ty`.
I've tried to closely match the existing behavior while moving the logic to the earlier `resolve_lifetime` pass, and [the crater report](https://gist.github.com/eddyb/4ac5b8516f87c1bfa2de528ed2b7779a) suggests none of the changes broke real code, but I will try to list everything:
There are few cases in lifetime elision that could trip users up due to "hidden knowledge":
```rust
type StaticStr = &'static str; // hides 'static
trait WithLifetime<'a> {
type Output; // can hide 'a
}
// This worked because the type of the first argument contains
// 'static, although StaticStr doesn't even have parameters.
fn foo(x: StaticStr) -> &str { x }
// This worked because the compiler resolved the argument type
// to <T as WithLifetime<'a>>::Output which has the hidden 'a.
fn bar<'a, T: WithLifetime<'a>>(_: T::Output) -> &str { "baz" }
```
In the two examples above, elision wasn't using lifetimes that were in the source, not even *needed* by paths in the source, but rather *happened* to be part of the semantic representation of the types.
To me, this suggests they should have never worked through elision (and they don't with this PR).
Next we have an actual rule with a strange result, that is, the return type here elides to `&'x str`:
```rust
impl<'a, 'b> Trait for Foo<'a, 'b> {
fn method<'x, 'y>(self: &'x Foo<'a, 'b>, _: Bar<'y>) -> &str {
&self.name
}
}
```
All 3 of `'a`, `'b` and `'y` are being ignored, because the `&self` elision rule only cares that the first argument is "`self` by reference". Due implementation considerations (elision running before typeck), I've limited it in this PR to a reference to a primitive/`struct`/`enum`/`union`, but not other types, but I am doing another crater run to assess the impact of limiting it to literally `&self` and `self: &Self` (they're identical in HIR).
It's probably ideal to keep an "implicit `Self` for `self`" type around and *only* apply the rule to `&self` itself, but that would result in more bikeshed, and #21400 suggests some people expect otherwise.
Another decent option is treating `self: X, ... -> Y` like `X -> Y` (one unique lifetime in `X` used for `Y`).
The remaining changes have to do with "object lifetime defaults" (see RFCs [599](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0599-default-object-bound.md) and [1156](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1156-adjust-default-object-bounds.md)):
```rust
trait Trait {}
struct Ref2<'a, 'b, T: 'a+'b>(&'a T, &'b T);
// These apply specifically within a (fn) body,
// which allows type and lifetime inference:
fn main() {
// Used to be &'a mut (Trait+'a) - where 'a is one
// inference variable - &'a mut (Trait+'b) in this PR.
let _: &mut Trait;
// Used to be an ambiguity error, but in this PR it's
// Ref2<'a, 'b, Trait+'c> (3 inference variables).
let _: Ref2<Trait>;
}
```
What's happening here is that inference variables are created on the fly by typeck whenever a lifetime has no resolution attached to it - while it would be possible to alter the implementation to reuse inference variables based on decisions made early by `resolve_lifetime`, not doing that is more flexible and works better - it can compile all testcases from #38624 by not ending up with `&'static mut (Trait+'static)`.
The ambiguity specifically cannot be an early error, because this is only the "default" (typeck can still pick something better based on the definition of `Trait` and whether it has any lifetime bounds), and having an error at all doesn't help anyone, as we can perfectly infer an appropriate lifetime inside the `fn` body.
**TODO**: write tests for the user-visible changes.
cc @nikomatsakis @arielb1
Bounds parsing refactoring 2
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/37511 for previous discussion.
cc @matklad
Relaxed parsing rules:
- zero bounds after `:` are allowed in all contexts.
- zero predicates are allowed after `where`.
- trailing separator `,` is allowed after predicates in `where` clauses not followed by `{`.
Other parsing rules:
- trailing separator `+` is still allowed in all bound lists.
Code is also cleaned up and tests added.
I haven't touched parsing of trait object types yet, I'll do it later.
exclusive range patterns
adds `..` patterns to the language under a feature gate (`exclusive_range_pattern`).
This allows turning
``` rust
match i {
0...9 => {},
10...19 => {},
20...29 => {},
_ => {}
}
```
into
``` rust
match i {
0..10 => {},
10..20 => {},
20..30 => {},
_ => {}
}
```
[11/n] Separate ty::Tables into one per each body.
_This is part of a series ([prev](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/38449) | [next]()) of patches designed to rework rustc into an out-of-order on-demand pipeline model for both better feature support (e.g. [MIR-based](https://github.com/solson/miri) early constant evaluation) and incremental execution of compiler passes (e.g. type-checking), with beneficial consequences to IDE support as well.
If any motivation is unclear, please ask for additional PR description clarifications or code comments._
<hr>
In order to track the results of type-checking and inference for incremental recompilation, they must be stored separately for each function or constant value, instead of lumped together.
These side-`Tables` also have to be tracked by various passes, as they visit through bodies (all of which have `Tables`, even if closures share the ones from their parent functions). This is usually done by switching a `tables` field in an override of `visit_nested_body` before recursing through `visit_body`, to the relevant one and then restoring it - however, in many cases the nesting is unnecessary and creating the visitor for each body in the crate and then visiting that body, would be a much cleaner solution.
To simplify handling of inlined HIR & its side-tables, their `NodeId` remapping and entries HIR map were fully stripped out, which means that `NodeId`s from inlined HIR must not be used where a local `NodeId` is expected. It might be possible to make the nodes (`Expr`, `Block`, `Pat`, etc.) that only show up within a `Body` have IDs that are scoped to that `Body`, which would also allow `Tables` to use `Vec`s.
That last part also fixes#38790 which was accidentally introduced in a previous refactor.
Historically this was done to accommodate bugs in lints, but there hasn't been a
bug in a lint since this feature was added which the warnings affected. Let's
completely purge warnings from all our stages by denying warnings in all stages.
This will also assist in tracking down `stage0` code to be removed whenever
we're updating the bootstrap compiler.
fix stack overflow by enum and cont issue #36163
some paths were skipped while checking for recursion.
I fixed bug reproduces on win64 cargo test. In previous PR #36458 time complexity was exponential in case of linked const values. Now it's linear.
r? @alexcrichton
Adds `-Z mir-stats`, which is similar to `-Z hir-stats`.
Adds `-Z mir-stats`, which is similar to `-Z hir-stats`.
Some notes:
* This code attempts to present the breakdown of each variant for
every enum in the MIR. This is meant to guide decisions about how to
revise representations e.g. when to box payloads for rare variants
to shrink the size of the enum overall.
* I left out the "Total:" line that hir-stats presents, because this
implementation uses the MIR Visitor infrastructure, and the memory
usage of structures directly embedded in other structures (e.g. the
`func: Operand` in a `TerminatorKind:Call`) is not distinguished
from similar structures allocated in a `Vec` (e.g. the `args:
Vec<Operand>` in a `TerminatorKind::Call`). This means that a naive
summation of all the accumulated sizes is misleading, because it
will double-count the contribution of the `Operand` of the `func` as
well as the size of the whole `TerminatorKind`.
* I did consider abandoning the MIR Visitor and instead hand-coding
a traversal that distinguished embedded storage from indirect
storage. But such code would be fragile; better to just require
people to take care when interpreting the presented results.
* This traverses the `mir.promoted` rvalues to capture stats for MIR
stored there, even though the MIR visitor super_mir method does not
do so. (I did not observe any promoted mir being newly traversed when
compiling the rustc crate, however.)
* It might be nice to try to unify this code with hir-stats. Then
again, the reporting portion is the only common code (I think), and
it is small compared to the visitors in hir-stats and mir-stats.
Some notes:
* This code attempts to present the breakdown of each variant for
every enum in the MIR. This is meant to guide decisions about how to
revise representations e.g. when to box payloads for rare variants
to shrink the size of the enum overall.
* I left out the "Total:" line that hir-stats presents, because this
implementation uses the MIR Visitor infrastructure, and the memory
usage of structures directly embedded in other structures (e.g. the
`func: Operand` in a `TerminatorKind:Call`) is not distinguished
from similar structures allocated in a `Vec` (e.g. the `args:
Vec<Operand>` in a `TerminatorKind::Call`). This means that a naive
summation of all the accumulated sizes is misleading, because it
will double-count the contribution of the `Operand` of the `func` as
well as the size of the whole `TerminatorKind`.
* I did consider abandoning the MIR Visitor and instead hand-coding
a traversal that distinguished embedded storage from indirect
storage. But such code would be fragile; better to just require
people to take care when interpreting the presented results.
* This traverses the `mir.promoted` rvalues to capture stats for MIR
stored there, even though the MIR visitor super_mir method does not
do so. (I did not observe any new mir being traversed when compiling
the rustc crate, however.)
* It might be nice to try to unify this code with hir-stats. Then
again, the reporting portion is the only common code (I think), and
it is small compared to the visitors in hir-stats and mir-stats.
They don't implement FnLikeNode anymore, instead are handled differently
further up in the call tree. Also, keep less information (just def ids
for the args).
Support `?Sized` in where clauses
Implemented as described in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/20503#issuecomment-258677026 - `?Trait` bounds are moved on type parameter definitions when possible, reported as errors otherwise.
(It'd be nice to unify bounds and where clauses in HIR, but this is mostly blocked by rustdoc now - it needs to render bounds in pleasant way and the best way to do it so far is to mirror what was written in source code.)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/20503
r? @nikomatsakis
Implement the `loop_break_value` feature.
This implements RFC 1624, tracking issue #37339.
- `FnCtxt` (in typeck) gets a stack of `LoopCtxt`s, which store the
currently deduced type of that loop, the desired type, and a list of
break expressions currently seen. `loop` loops get a fresh type
variable as their initial type (this logic is stolen from that for
arrays). `while` loops get `()`.
- `break {expr}` looks up the broken loop, and unifies the type of
`expr` with the type of the loop.
- `break` with no expr unifies the loop's type with `()`.
- When building MIR, loops no longer construct a `()` value at
termination of the loop; rather, the `break` expression assigns the
result of the loop.
- ~~I have also changed the loop scoping in MIR-building so that the test
of a while loop is not considered to be part of that loop. This makes
the rules consistent with #37360. The new loop scopes in typeck also
follow this rule. That means that `loop { while (break) {} }` now
terminates instead of looping forever. This is technically a breaking
change.~~
- ~~On that note, expressions like `while break {}` and `if break {}` no
longer parse because `{}` is interpreted as an expression argument to
`break`. But no code except compiler test cases should do that anyway
because it makes no sense.~~
- The RFC did not make it clear, but I chose to make `break ()` inside
of a `while` loop illegal, just in case we wanted to do anything with
that design space in the future.
This is my first time dealing with this part of rustc so I'm sure
there's plenty of problems to pick on here ^_^
This implements RFC 1624, tracking issue #37339.
- `FnCtxt` (in typeck) gets a stack of `LoopCtxt`s, which store the
currently deduced type of that loop, the desired type, and a list of
break expressions currently seen. `loop` loops get a fresh type
variable as their initial type (this logic is stolen from that for
arrays). `while` loops get `()`.
- `break {expr}` looks up the broken loop, and unifies the type of
`expr` with the type of the loop.
- `break` with no expr unifies the loop's type with `()`.
- When building MIR, `loop` loops no longer construct a `()` value at
termination of the loop; rather, the `break` expression assigns the
result of the loop. `while` loops are unchanged.
- `break` respects contexts in which expressions may not end with braced
blocks. That is, `while break { break-value } { while-body }` is
illegal; this preserves backwards compatibility.
- The RFC did not make it clear, but I chose to make `break ()` inside
of a `while` loop illegal, just in case we wanted to do anything with
that design space in the future.
This is my first time dealing with this part of rustc so I'm sure
there's plenty of problems to pick on here ^_^
