Move `SanityCheck` and `MirPass`
They are currently in `rustc_middle`. This PR moves them to `rustc_mir_transform`, which makes more sense.
r? ``@cjgillot``
Because that's now the only crate that uses it.
Moving stuff out of `rustc_middle` is always welcome.
I chose to use `impl crate::MirPass`/`impl crate::MirLint` (with
explicit `crate::`) everywhere because that's the only mention of
`MirPass`/`MirLint` used in all of these files. (Prior to this change,
`MirPass` was mostly imported via `use rustc_middle::mir::*` items.)
Remove `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing`, round 4
Because explicit importing of macros via use items is nicer (more standard and readable) than implicit importing via #[macro_use]. Continuing the work from #124511, #124914, and #125434. After this PR no `rustc_*` crates use `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing` except for `rustc_codegen_gcc` which is a special case and I will do separately.
r? ```@jieyouxu```
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.
because we are already marking unions `NoPropagation` in
`CanConstProp::check()`. That is enough to prevent any attempts
at const propagating unions and this second check is not needed.
Also improve a comment in `CanConstProp::check()`
Add `tag_for_variant` query
This query allows for sharing code between `rustc_const_eval` and `rustc_transmutability`. It's a precursor to a PR I'm working on to entirely replace the bespoke layout computations in `rustc_transmutability`.
r? `@compiler-errors`
