match lowering: expand or-candidates mixed with candidates above
This PR tweaks match lowering of or-patterns. Consider this:
```rust
match (x, y) {
(1, true) => 1,
(2, false) => 2,
(1 | 2, true | false) => 3,
(3 | 4, true | false) => 4,
_ => 5,
}
```
One might hope that this can be compiled to a single `SwitchInt` on `x` followed by some boolean checks. Before this PR, we compile this to 3 `SwitchInt`s on `x`, because an arm that contains more than one or-pattern was compiled on its own. This PR groups branch `3` with the two branches above, getting us down to 2 `SwitchInt`s on `x`.
We can't in general expand or-patterns freely, because this interacts poorly with another optimization we do: or-pattern simplification. When an or-pattern doesn't involve bindings, we branch the success paths of all its alternatives to the same block. The drawback is that in a case like:
```rust
match (1, true) {
(1 | 2, false) => unreachable!(),
(2, _) => unreachable!(),
_ => {}
}
```
if we used a single `SwitchInt`, by the time we test `false` we don't know whether we came from the `1` case or the `2` case, so we don't know where to go if `false` doesn't match.
Hence the limitation: we can process or-pattern alternatives alongside candidates that precede it, but not candidates that follow it. (Unless the or-pattern is the only remaining match pair of its candidate, in which case we can process it alongside whatever).
This PR allows the processing of or-pattern alternatives alongside candidates that precede it. One benefit is that we now process or-patterns in a single place in `mod.rs`.
r? ``@matthewjasper``
Suggest removing unused tuple fields if they are the last fields
Fixes#124556
We now check if dead/unused fields are the last fields of the tuple and suggest their removal instead of suggesting them to be changed to `()`.
Condition coverage extends branch coverage to treat the specific case
of last operands of boolean decisions not involved in control flow.
This is ultimately made for MCDC to be exhaustive on all boolean expressions.
This patch adds a call to `visit_branch_coverage_operation` to track the
top-level operand of the said decisions, and changes
`visit_coverage_standalone_condition` so MCDC branch registration is called
when enabled on these _last RHS_ cases.
improve tip for inaccessible traits
Improve the tips when the candidate method is from an inaccessible trait.
For example:
```rs
mod m {
trait Trait {
fn f() {}
}
impl<T> Trait for T {}
}
fn main() {
struct S;
S::f();
}
```
The difference between before and now is:
```diff
error[E0599]: no function or associated item named `f` found for struct `S` in the current scope
--> ./src/main.rs:88:6
|
LL | struct S;
| -------- function or associated item `f` not found for this struct
LL | S::f();
| ^ function or associated item not found in `S`
|
= help: items from traits can only be used if the trait is implemented and in scope
- help: trait `Trait` which provides `f` is implemented but not in scope; perhaps you want to import it
+ help: trait `crate:Ⓜ️:Trait` which provides `f` is implemented but not reachable
|
- LL + use crate:Ⓜ️:Trait;
|
```
This commit is a continuation of the work originally proposed in
rust-lang/compiler-team#607 and later amended in
rust-lang/compiler-team#695. The end goal is to rename `wasm32-wasi` to
`wasm32-wasip1` to reflect WASI's development and distinguish the
preexisting target from the `wasm32-wasip2` target that WASI is now
developing. Work for this transition began in #120468 which landed in
Rust 1.78 which became stable on 2024-05-02.
This implements the next phase of the transition plan to warn on usage
of `wasm32-wasi`. This is intended to help alert users that a removal is
pending and all release channels have the replacement available as well.
This will reach stable on 2024-09-05. The next stage of the plan is to
remove the `wasm32-wasi` target some time in October 2024 which means
that the removal will reach stable on 2025-01-09. For reference a full
schedule of this transition is listed [here].
Currently this implementation is a simple unconditional warning whenever
`rustc --target wasm32-wasi` is invoked. As-implemented there's no way
to turn off the warning other than to switch to the `wasm32-wasip1`
target.
[here]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120468#issuecomment-1977878747
Replace `move||` with `move ||`
Edit from #126631 to revert changes in `tests/ui`.
There are 18 instances of `move||` across 6 files in the repo:
- `compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/typeck_root_ctxt.rs`
- `library/core/src/sync/atomic.rs`
- `library/std/src/sync/condvar.rs`
- `library/std/src/sync/mpsc/mod.rs`
- `library/std/src/sync/barrier.rs`
- `library/std/src/thread/local.rs`
I have replaced all such instances with `move ||` instead as it better adheres to modern formatting standards.
Ideally, we would have this automated by rustfmt or some other tool, but I do not have the time to implement such a feature or tool.
Nonetheless, I would encourage any effort invested into such a tool or feature.
hir_typeck: be more conservative in making "note caller chooses ty param" note
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122195 I added a "caller chooses ty for type param" note for when the return expression type a.k.a. found type does not match the expected return type.
#126547 found that this note was confusing when the found return type *contains* the expected type, e.g.
```rs
fn f<T>(t: &T) -> T {
t
}
```
because the found return type `&T` will *always* be different from the expected return type `T`, so the note was needlessly redundant and confusing.
This PR addresses that by not making the note if the found return type contains the expected return type.
r? ``@fmease`` (since you reviewed the original PR)
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126547
safe transmute: support non-ZST, variantful, uninhabited enums
Previously, `Tree::from_enum`'s implementation branched into three disjoint cases:
1. enums that uninhabited
2. enums for which all but one variant is uninhabited
3. enums with multiple variants
This branching (incorrectly) did not differentiate between variantful and variantless uninhabited enums. In both cases, we assumed (and asserted) that uninhabited enums are zero-sized types. This assumption is false for enums like:
enum Uninhabited { A(!, u128) }
...which, currently, has the same size as `u128`. This faulty assumption manifested as the ICE reported in #126460.
In this PR, we revise the first case of `Tree::from_enum` to consider only the narrow category of "enums that are uninhabited ZSTs". These enums, whose layouts are described with `Variants::Single { index }`, are special in their layouts otherwise resemble the `!` type and cannot be descended into like typical enums. This first case captures uninhabited enums like:
enum Uninhabited { A(!, !), B(!) }
The second case is revised to consider the broader category of "enums that defer their layout to one of their variants"; i.e., enums whose layouts are described with `Variants::Single { index }` and that do have a variant at `index`. This second case captures uninhabited enums that are not ZSTs, like:
enum Uninhabited { A(!, u128) }
...which represent their variants with `Variants::Single`.
Finally, the third case is revised to cover the broader category of "enums with multiple variants", which captures uninhabited enums like:
enum Uninhabited { A(u8, !), B(!, u32) }
...which represent their variants with `Variants::Multiple`.
This PR also adds a comment requested by ````@RalfJung```` in his review of #126358 to `compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/interpret/discriminant.rs`.
Fixes#126460
r? ````@compiler-errors````
Suggest using a standalone doctest for non-local impl defs
This PR tweaks the lint output of the `non_local_definitions` lint to suggest using a standalone doctest instead of a moving the `impl` def to an impossible place as was already done with `macro_rules!` case in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124568.
Fixes#126339
r? ```@fmease```
Place tail expression behind terminating scope
This PR implements #123739 so that we can do further experiments in nightly.
A little rewrite has been applied to `for await` lowering. It was previously `unsafe { Pin::unchecked_new(into_async_iter(..)) }`. Under the edition 2024 rule, however, `into_async_iter` gets dropped at the end of the `unsafe` block. This presumably the first Edition 2024 migration rule goes by hoisting `into_async_iter(..)` into `match` one level above, so it now looks like the following.
```rust
match into_async_iter($iter_expr) {
ref mut iter => match unsafe { Pin::unchecked_new(iter) } {
...
}
}
```
delegation: Implement glob delegation
Support delegating to all trait methods in one go.
Overriding globs with explicit definitions is also supported.
The implementation is generally based on the design from https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3530#issuecomment-2020869823, but unlike with list delegation in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123413 we cannot expand glob delegation eagerly.
We have to enqueue it into the queue of unexpanded macros (most other macros are processed this way too), and then a glob delegation waits in that queue until its trait path is resolved, and enough code expands to generate the identifier list produced from the glob.
Glob delegation is only allowed in impls, and can only point to traits.
Supporting it in other places gives very little practical benefit, but significantly raises the implementation complexity.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118212.
Currently the docs show e.g.
{transmute(0xfffeffffffffffffffffffffffffffff): f128}
for f128 constants. This should fix that to instead use apfloat for
printing, as is done for `f32` and `f64`.
- Avoid "caller chooses ty for type param" note if the found type a.k.a.
the return expression type *contains* the type parameter, because e.g.
`&T` will always be different from `T` (i.e. "well duh").
- Rename `note_caller_chooses_ty_for_ty_param` to
`try_note_caller_chooses_ty_for_ty_param` because the note is not
always made.
Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/126547
Uplift next trait solver to `rustc_next_trait_solver`
🎉
There's so many FIXMEs! Sorry! Ideally this merges with the FIXMEs and we track and squash them over the near future.
Also, this still doesn't build on anything other than rustc. I still need to fix `feature = "nightly"` in `rustc_type_ir`, and remove and fix all the nightly feature usage in the new trait solver (notably: let-chains).
Also, sorry `@lcnr` I know you asked for me to separate the commit where we `mv rustc_trait_selection/solve/... rustc_next_trait_solver/solve/...`, but I had already done all the work by that point. Luckily, `git` understands the file moves so it should still be relatively reviewable.
If this is still very difficult to review, then I can do some rebasing magic to try to separate this out. Please let me know!
r? lcnr
Replace all `&DiagCtxt` with a `DiagCtxtHandle<'_>` wrapper type
r? `@davidtwco`
This paves the way for tracking more state (e.g. error tainting) in the diagnostic context handle
Basically I will add a field to the `DiagCtxtHandle` that refers back to the `InferCtxt`'s (and others) `Option<ErrorHandled>`, allowing us to immediately taint these contexts when emitting an error and not needing manual tainting anymore (which is easy to forget and we don't do in general anyway)
coverage: Add debugging flag `-Zcoverage-options=no-mir-spans`
When set, this flag skips the code that normally extracts coverage spans from MIR statements and terminators. That sometimes makes it easier to debug branch coverage and MC/DC coverage instrumentation, because the coverage output is less noisy.
For internal debugging only. If future code changes would make it hard to keep supporting this flag, it should be removed at that time.
`@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
Rework `feature(precise_capturing)` to represent `use<...>` as a syntactical bound
Reworks `precise_capturing` for a recent lang-team consensus.
Specifically:
> The conclusion of the team is that we'll make use<..> a bound. That is, we'll support impl use<..> + Trait, impl Trait + use<..>, etc.
> For now, we will support at most one such bound in a list of bounds, and semantically we'll only support these bounds in the item bounds of RPIT-like impl Trait opaque types (i.e., in the places discussed in the RFC).
Lang decision in favor of this approach:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125836#issuecomment-2151351849
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123432
