explain doc comments in macros a bit
Open to suggestions on improving this... macro parsing is very foreign to me.
Should we have a structured suggestion to turn them into their regular non-doc comments?
Fixes#92846Fixes#97850
Currently, for the enums and comparison traits we always check the tag
for equality before doing anything else. This is a bit clumsy. This
commit changes things so that the tags are handled very much like a
zeroth field in the enum.
For `eq`/ne` this makes the code slightly cleaner.
For `partial_cmp` and `cmp` it's a more notable change: in the case
where the tags aren't equal, instead of having a tag equality check
followed by a tag comparison, it just does a single tag comparison.
The commit also improves how `Hash` works for enums: instead of having
duplicated code to hash the tag for every arm within the match, we do
it just once before the match.
All this required replacing the `EnumNonMatchingCollapsed` value with a
new `EnumTag` value.
For fieldless enums the new code is particularly improved. All the code
now produced is close to optimal, being very similar to what you'd write
by hand.
In practice, this doesn't matter very much because the script takes ~no time to run.
But this makes `CARGO_LOG=info` easier to read, and theoretically saves a few milliseconds.
Use `tag` in names of things referring to tags, instead of the
mysterious `vi`.
Also change `arg_N` in output to `argN`, which has the same length as
`self` and so results in nicer vertical alignments.
By producing `&T` expressions for fields instead of `T`. This matches
what the existing comments (e.g. on `FieldInfo`) claim is happening, and
it's also what most of the trait-specific code needs.
The exception is `PartialEq`, which needs `T` expressions for lots of
special case error messaging to work. So we now convert the `&T` back to
a `T` for `PartialEq`.
E.g. improving code like this:
```
match &*self {
&Enum1::Single { x: ref __self_0 } => {
::core:#️⃣:Hash::hash(&*__self_0, state)
}
}
```
to this:
```
match self {
Enum1::Single { x: __self_0 } => {
::core:#️⃣:Hash::hash(&*__self_0, state)
}
}
```
by removing the `&*`, the `&`, and the `ref`.
I suspect the current generated code predates deref-coercion.
The commit also gets rid of `use_temporaries`, instead passing around
`always_copy`, which makes things a little clearer. And it fixes up some
comments.
promote placeholder bounds to 'static obligations
In NLL, when we are promoting a bound out from a closure, if we have a requirement that `T: 'a` where `'a` is in a higher universe, we were previously ignoring that, which is totally wrong. We should be promoting those constraints to `'static`, since universes are not expressible across closure boundaries.
Fixes#98693
~~(Marking as WIP because I'm still running tests, haven't add the new test, etc)~~
r? ``@jackh726``
Previously, drop-tracking would incorrectly assume the struct would be dropped immediately, which
was not true: when the field had a type with a manual `Drop` impl, the drop becomes observable and
has to be dropped after the await instead.
For reasons I don't understand, this also fixes another error crater popped up related to type parameters.
#98476
proc_macro: Fix expand_expr expansion of bool literals
Previously, the expand_expr method would expand bool literals as a
`Literal` token containing a `LitKind::Bool`, rather than as an `Ident`.
This is not a valid token, and the `LitKind::Bool` case needs to be
handled seperately.
Tests were added to more deeply compare the streams in the expand-expr
test suite to catch mistakes like this in the future.
Partially stabilize const_slice_from_raw_parts
This doesn't stabilize methods working on mutable pointers.
This pull request continues from #94946.
Pinging `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval` this because I use `rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable`. I believe this is justifiable as it's already possible to use `slice::from_raw_parts` in stable by abusing `transmute`. The stable alternative to this would be to provide a stable const implementation of `std::ptr::from_raw_parts` (as it can already be implemented in stable).
```rust
use std::mem;
#[repr(C)]
struct Slice<T> {
data: *const T,
len: usize,
}
fn main() {
let data: *const i32 = [1, 2, 3, 4].as_ptr();
let len = 4;
println!("{:?}", unsafe {
mem::transmute::<Slice<i32>, &[i32]>(Slice { data, len })
});
}
```
`@rustbot` modify labels: +T-libs-api
don't use `commit_if_ok` during `higher_ranked_sub`
This snapshot doesn't really do anything useful for us, especially once we deal with placeholder outlive bounds during trait solving.
I guess that currently the idea is that `higher_ranked_sub` could cause a later `leak_check` to fail even if the combine operation isn't actually relevant. But really, using combine outside of snapshot and ignoring its result is wrong anyways, as it can constrain inference variables.
r? rust-lang/types
don't allow ZST in ScalarInt
There are several indications that we should not ZST as a ScalarInt:
- We had two ways to have ZST valtrees, either an empty `Branch` or a `Leaf` with a ZST in it.
`ValTree::zst()` used the former, but the latter could possibly arise as well.
- Likewise, the interpreter had `Immediate::Uninit` and `Immediate::Scalar(Scalar::ZST)`.
- LLVM codegen already had to special-case ZST ScalarInt.
So I propose we stop using ScalarInt to represent ZST (which are clearly not integers). Instead, we can add new ZST variants to those types that did not have other variants which could be used for this purpose.
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98831. Only the commits starting from "don't allow ZST in ScalarInt" are new.
r? `@oli-obk`
There are several indications that we should not ZST as a ScalarInt:
- We had two ways to have ZST valtrees, either an empty `Branch` or a `Leaf` with a ZST in it.
`ValTree::zst()` used the former, but the latter could possibly arise as well.
- Likewise, the interpreter had `Immediate::Uninit` and `Immediate::Scalar(Scalar::ZST)`.
- LLVM codegen already had to special-case ZST ScalarInt.
So instead add new ZST variants to those types that did not have other variants
which could be used for this purpose.
Clarify MIR semantics of storage statements
Seems worthwhile to start closing out some of the less controversial open questions about MIR semantics. Hopefully this is fairly non-controversial - it's what we implement already, and I see no reason to do anything more restrictive. cc ``@tmiasko`` who commented on this when it was discussed in the original PR that added these docs.
Implement support for DWARF version 5.
DWARF version 5 brings a number of improvements over version 4. Quoting from
the announcement [1]:
> Version 5 incorporates improvements in many areas: better data compression,
> separation of debugging data from executable files, improved description of
> macros and source files, faster searching for symbols, improved debugging
> optimized code, as well as numerous improvements in functionality and
> performance.
On platforms where DWARF version 5 is supported (Linux, primarily), this commit
adds support for it behind a new `-Z dwarf-version=5` flag.
[1]: https://dwarfstd.org/Public_Review.php
r? ``@michaelwoerister``
Miscellaneous inlining improvements
Add `#[inline]` to a few trivial non-generic methods from a perf report
that otherwise wouldn't be candidates for inlining.
