When `#![feature(min_generic_const_args)]` is enabled, we now lower all
const paths in generic arg position to `hir::ConstArgKind::Path`. We
then lower assoc const paths to `ty::ConstKind::Unevaluated` since we
can no longer use the anon const expression lowering machinery. In the
process of implementing this, I factored out `hir_ty_lowering` code that
is now shared between lowering assoc types and assoc consts.
This PR also introduces a `#[type_const]` attribute for trait assoc
consts that are allowed as const args. However, we still need to
implement code to check that assoc const definitions satisfy
`#[type_const]` if present (basically is it a const path or a
monomorphic anon const).
It mirrors `ExprKind::Binary`, and contains a `BinOpKind`. This makes
`AssocOp` more like `ExprKind`. Note that the variants removed from
`AssocOp` are all named differently to `BinOpToken`, e.g. `Multiply`
instead of `Mul`, so that's an inconsistency removed.
The commit adds `precedence` and `fixity` methods to `BinOpKind`, and
calls them from the corresponding methods in `AssocOp`. This avoids the
need to create an `AssocOp` from a `BinOpKind` in a bunch of places, and
`AssocOp::from_ast_binop` is removed.
`AssocOp::to_ast_binop` is also no longer needed.
Overall things are shorter and nicer.
tree-wide: parallel: Fully removed all `Lrc`, replaced with `Arc`
tree-wide: parallel: Fully removed all `Lrc`, replaced with `Arc`
This is continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132282 .
I'm pretty sure I did everything right. In particular, I searched all occurrences of `Lrc` in submodules and made sure that they don't need replacement.
There are other possibilities, through.
We can define `enum Lrc<T> { Rc(Rc<T>), Arc(Arc<T>) }`. Or we can make `Lrc` a union and on every clone we can read from special thread-local variable. Or we can add a generic parameter to `Lrc` and, yes, this parameter will be everywhere across all codebase.
So, if you think we should take some alternative approach, then don't merge this PR. But if it is decided to stick with `Arc`, then, please, merge.
cc "Parallel Rustc Front-end" ( https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113349 )
r? SparrowLii
`@rustbot` label WG-compiler-parallel
includes post-developed commit: do not suggest internal-only keywords as corrections to parse failures.
includes post-developed commit: removed tabs that creeped in into rustfmt tool source code.
includes post-developed commit, placating rustfmt self dogfooding.
includes post-developed commit: add backquotes to prevent markdown checking from trying to treat an attr as a markdown hyperlink/
includes post-developed commit: fix lowering to keep contracts from being erroneously inherited by nested bodies (like closures).
Rebase Conflicts:
- compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs
- compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/item.rs
- compiler/rustc_span/src/hygiene.rs
Remove contracts keywords from diagnostic messages
Precedence improvements: closures and jumps
This PR fixes some cases where rustc's pretty printers would redundantly parenthesize expressions that didn't need it.
<table>
<tr><th>Before</th><th>After</th></tr>
<tr><td><code>return (|x: i32| x)</code></td><td><code>return |x: i32| x</code></td></tr>
<tr><td><code>(|| -> &mut () { std::process::abort() }).clone()</code></td><td><code>|| -> &mut () { std::process::abort() }.clone()</code></td></tr>
<tr><td><code>(continue) + 1</code></td><td><code>continue + 1</code></td></tr>
</table>
Tested by `echo "fn main() { let _ = $AFTER; }" | rustc -Zunpretty=expanded /dev/stdin`.
The pretty-printer aims to render the syntax tree as it actually exists in rustc, as faithfully as possible, in Rust syntax. It can insert parentheses where forced by Rust's grammar in order to preserve the meaning of a macro-generated syntax tree, for example in the case of `a * $rhs` where $rhs is `b + c`. But for any expression parsed from source code, without a macro involved, there should never be a reason for inserting additional parentheses not present in the original.
For closures and jumps (return, break, continue, yield, do yeet, become) the unneeded parentheses came from the precedence of some of these expressions being misidentified. In the same order as the table above:
- Jumps and closures are supposed to have equal precedence. The [Rust Reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.83.0/reference/expressions.html#expression-precedence) says so, and in Syn they do. There is no Rust syntax that would require making a precedence distinction between jumps and closures. But in rustc these were previously 2 distinct levels with the closure being lower, hence the parentheses around a closure inside a jump (but not a jump inside a closure).
- When a closure is written with an explicit return type, the grammar [requires](https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.83.0/reference/expressions/closure-expr.html) that the closure body consists of exactly one block expression, not any other arbitrary expression as usual for closures. Parsing of the closure body does not continue after the block expression. So in `|| { 0 }.clone()` the clone is inside the closure body and applies to `{ 0 }`, whereas in `|| -> _ { 0 }.clone()` the clone is outside and applies to the closure as a whole.
- Continue never needs parentheses. It was previously marked as having the lowest possible precedence but it should have been the highest, next to paths and loops and function calls, not next to jumps.
`rustc_span::symbol` defines some things that are re-exported from
`rustc_span`, such as `Symbol` and `sym`. But it doesn't re-export some
closely related things such as `Ident` and `kw`. So you can do `use
rustc_span::{Symbol, sym}` but you have to do `use
rustc_span::symbol::{Ident, kw}`, which is inconsistent for no good
reason.
This commit re-exports `Ident`, `kw`, and `MacroRulesNormalizedIdent`,
and changes many `rustc_span::symbol::` qualifiers in `compiler/` to
`rustc_span::`. This is a 200+ net line of code reduction, mostly
because many files with two `use rustc_span` items can be reduced to
one.
Keep track of patterns that could have introduced a binding, but didn't
When we recover from a pattern parse error, or a pattern uses `..`, we keep track of that and affect resolution error for missing bindings that could have been provided by that pattern. We differentiate between `..` and parse recovery. We silence resolution errors likely caused by the pattern parse error.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `title` in this scope
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:18:30
|
LL | if let Website { url, .. } = website {
| ------------------- this pattern doesn't include `title`, which is available in `Website`
LL | println!("[{}]({})", title, url);
| ^^^^^ not found in this scope
```
Fix#74863.
When we recover from a pattern parse error, or a pattern uses `..`, we keep track of that and affect resolution error for missing bindings that could have been provided by that pattern. We differentiate between `..` and parse recovery. We silence resolution errors likely caused by the pattern parse error.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `title` in this scope
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:19:30
|
LL | println!("[{}]({})", title, url);
| ^^^^^ not found in this scope
|
note: `Website` has a field `title` which could have been included in this pattern, but it wasn't
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:17:12
|
LL | / struct Website {
LL | | url: String,
LL | | title: Option<String> ,
| | ----- defined here
LL | | }
| |_-
...
LL | if let Website { url, .. } = website {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this pattern doesn't include `title`, which is available in `Website`
```
Fix#74863.
Add AST support for unsafe binders
I'm splitting up #130514 into pieces. It's impossible for me to keep up with a huge PR like that. I'll land type system support for this next, probably w/o MIR lowering, which will come later.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@BoxyUwU` and `@lcnr` who also may want to look at this, though this PR doesn't do too much yet
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by `mod` expansion.
Fix#97734.
Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681.
Support default fields in enum struct variant
Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition:
```rust
pub enum Bar {
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant
```rust
Bar::Foo { .. }
```
`#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants.
Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields
```rust
pub enum Bar {
#[default]
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build.
Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled).
Properly instantiate MIR const
The following works:
```rust
struct S<A> {
a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(),
}
S::<i32> { .. }
```
Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval
We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users'
getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error
that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to
*always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted.
This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the
expression relies on a const parameter.
Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`:
- Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields.
- Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values.
- Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
Change `AttrArgs::Eq` to a struct variant
Cleanups for simplifying https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131808
Basically changes `AttrArgs::Eq` to a struct variant and then avoids several matches on `AttrArgsEq` in favor of methods on it. This will make future refactorings simpler, as they can either keep methods or switch to field accesses without having to restructure code
Inline ExprPrecedence::order into Expr::precedence
The representation of expression precedence in rustc_ast has been an obstacle to further improvements in the pretty-printer (continuing from #119105 and #119427).
Previously the operation of *"does this expression have lower precedence than that one"* (relevant for parenthesis insertion in macro-generated syntax trees) consisted of 3 steps:
1. Convert `Expr` to `ExprPrecedence` using `.precedence()`
2. Convert `ExprPrecedence` to `i8` using `.order()`
3. Compare using `<`
As far as I can guess, the reason for the separation between `precedence()` and `order()` was so that both `rustc_ast::Expr` and `rustc_hir::Expr` could convert as straightforwardly as possible to the same `ExprPrecedence` enum, and then the more finicky logic performed by `order` could be present just once.
The mapping between `Expr` and `ExprPrecedence` was intended to be as straightforward as possible:
```rust
match self.kind {
ExprKind::Closure(..) => ExprPrecedence::Closure,
...
}
```
although there were exceptions of both many-to-one, and one-to-many:
```rust
ExprKind::Underscore => ExprPrecedence::Path,
ExprKind::Path(..) => ExprPrecedence::Path,
...
ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Prefix) => ExprPrecedence::Match,
ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Postfix) => ExprPrecedence::PostfixMatch,
```
Where the nature of `ExprPrecedence` becomes problematic is when a single expression kind might be associated with multiple different precedence levels depending on context (outside the expression) and contents (inside the expression). For example consider what is the precedence of an ExprKind::Closure `$closure`. Well, on the left-hand side of a binary operator it would need parentheses in order to avoid the trailing binary operator being absorbed into the closure body: `($closure) + Rhs`, so the precedence is something lower than that of `+`. But on the right-hand side of a binary operator, a closure is just a straightforward prefix expression like a unary op, which is a relatively high precedence level, higher than binops but lower than method calls: `Lhs + $closure` is fine without parens but `($closure).method()` needs them. But as a third case, if the closure contains an explicit return type, then the precedence is an even higher level than that, never needing parenthesization even in a binop left-hand side or method call: `|| -> bool { false } + Rhs` or `|| -> bool { false }.method()`.
You can see that trying to capture all of this resolution about expressions into `ExprPrecedence` violates the intention of `ExprPrecedence` being a straightforward one-to-one correspondence from each AST and HIR `ExprKind` variant. It would be possible to attempt that by doing stuff like `ExprPrecedence::Closure(Side::Leading, ReturnType::No)`, but I don't foresee the original envisioned benefit of the `precedence()`/`order()` distinction being retained in this approach. Instead I want to move toward a model that Syn has been using successfully. In Syn, there is a Precedence enum but it differs from rustc in the following ways:
- There are [relatively few variants](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/precedence.rs#L11-L47) compared to rustc's `ExprPrecedence`. For example there is no distinction at the precedence level between returns and closures, or between loops and method calls.
- We distinguish between [leading](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L293) and [trailing](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L309) precedence, taking into account an expression's context such as what token follows it (for various syntactic bail-outs in Rust's grammar, like ambiguities around break-with-value) and how it relates to operators from the surrounding syntax tree.
- There are no hardcoded mysterious integer quantities like rustc's `PREC_CLOSURE = -40`. All precedence comparisons are performed via PartialOrd on a C-like enum.
This PR is just a first step in these changes. As you can tell from Syn, I definitely think there is value in having a dedicated type to represent precedence, instead of what `order()` is doing with `i8`. But that is a whole separate adventure because rustc_ast doesn't even agree consistently on `i8` being the type for precedence order; `AssocOp::precedence` instead uses `usize` and there are casts in both directions. It is likely that a type called `ExprPrecedence` will re-appear, but it will look substantially different from the one that existed before this PR.
