exhaustiveness: Explain why a given pattern is considered unreachable
This PR tells the user why a given pattern is considered unreachable. I reused the intersection information we were already computing; even though it's incomplete I convinced myself that it is sufficient to always get a set of patterns that cover the unreachable one.
I'm not a fan of the diagnostic messages I came up with, I'm open to suggestions.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127870. This is also the other one of the two diagnostic improvements I wanted to do before https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122792.
Note: the first commit is an unrelated drive-by tweak.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Various notes on match lowering
This is an assortment of comments for things that I found unclear or confusing when I was learning how match lowering works.
This PR only adds/modifies comments, so there are no functional changes.
I have tried to avoid touching code that would conflict with #127159.
r? `@Nadrieril`
treat `&raw (const|mut) UNSAFE_STATIC` implied deref as safe
Fixesrust-lang/rust#125833
As reported in that and related issues, `static mut STATIC_MUT: T` is very often used in embedded code, and is in many ways equivalent to `static STATIC_CELL: SyncUnsafeCell<T>`. The Rust expression of `&raw mut STATIC_MUT` and `SyncUnsafeCell::get(&STATIC_CELL)` are approximately equal, and both evaluate to `*mut T`. The library function is safe because it has *declared itself* to be safe. However, the raw ref operator is unsafe because all uses of `static mut` are considered unsafe, even though the static's value is not used by this expression (unlike, for example, `&STATIC_MUT`).
We can fix this unnatural difference by simply adding the proper exclusion for the safety check inside the THIR unsafeck, so that we do not declare it unsafe if it is not.
While the primary concern here is `static mut`, this change is made for all instances of an "unsafe static", which includes a static declared inside `extern "abi" {}`. Hypothetically, we could go as far as generalizing this to all instances of `&raw (const|mut) *ptr`, but today we do not, as we have not actually considered the range of possible expressions that use a similar encoding. We do not even extend this to thread-local equivalents, because they have less clear semantics.
The implied deref to statics introduced by HIR->THIR lowering is only
used to create place expressions, it lacks unsafe semantics.
It is also confusing, as there is no visible `*ident` in the source.
For both classes of "unsafe static" (extern static and static mut)
allow this operation.
We lack a clear story around `thread_local! { static mut }`, which
is actually its own category of item that reuses the static syntax but
has its own rules. It's possible they should be similarly included, but
in the absence of a good reason one way or another, we do not bless it.
Explain why we require `_` for empty patterns
This adds a note to the "non-exhaustive patterns" diagnostic to explain why we sometimes require extra `_` patterns on empty types. This is one of the two diagnostic improvements I wanted to do before [stabilizing `min_exhaustive_patterns`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/122792).
r? ``@compiler-errors``
match lowering: Split `finalize_or_candidate` into more coherent methods
I noticed that `finalize_or_candidate` was responsible for several different postprocessing tasks, making it difficult to understand.
This PR aims to clean up some of the confusion by:
- Extracting `remove_never_subcandidates` from `merge_trivial_subcandidates`
- Extracting `test_remaining_match_pairs_after_or` from `finalize_or_candidate`
- Taking what remains of `finalize_or_candidate`, and inlining it into its caller
---
Reviewing individual commits and ignoring whitespace is recommended.
Most of the large-looking changes are just moving existing code around, mostly unaltered.
r? ``@Nadrieril``
Replace a long inline "autoref" comment with method docs
This comment has two problems:
- It is very long, making the flow of the enclosing method hard to follow.
- It starts by talking about an `autoref` flag that hasn't existed since #59114.
- This makes it hard to trust that the information in the comment is accurate or relevant, even though much of it still seems to be true.
This PR therefore replaces the long inline comment with a revised doc comment on `bind_matched_candidate_for_guard`, and some shorter inline comments.
For readers who want more historical context, we also link to the PR that added the old comment, and the PR that removed the `autoref` flag.
match lowering: Rename `MatchPair` to `MatchPairTree`
In #120904, `MatchPair` became able to store other match pairs as children, forming a tree. That has made the old name confusing, so this patch renames the type to `MatchPairTree`.
This PR also includes a patch renaming the `test` method to `pick_test_for_match_pair`, since it would conflict with the main change.
r? `@Nadrieril`
MIR building: Stop using `unpack!` for `BlockAnd<()>`
This is a subset of #127416, containing only the parts related to `BlockAnd<()>`.
The first patch removes the non-assigning form of the `unpack!` macro, because it is frustratingly inconsistent with the main form. We can replace it with an ordinary method that discards the `()` and returns the block.
The second patch then finds all of the remaining code that was using `unpack!` with `BlockAnd<()>`, and updates it to use that new method instead.
---
Changes since original review of #127416:
- Renamed `fn unpack_block` → `fn into_block`
- Removed `fn unpack_discard`, replacing it with `let _: BlockAnd<()> = ...` (2 occurrences)
- Tweaked `arm_end_blocks` to unpack earlier and build `Vec<BasicBlock>` instead of `Vec<BlockAnd<()>>`
In #120904, `MatchPair` became able to store other match pairs as children,
forming a tree. That has made the old name confusing, so this patch renames the
type to `MatchPairTree`.
match lowering: Use an iterator to find `expand_until`
A small cleanup that I noticed while looking at #127164.
This makes it easier to see that the split point is always the index after the found item, or the whole list if no stopping point was found.
r? `@Nadrieril`
match lowering: Move `MatchPair` tree creation to its own module
This makes it easier to see that `MatchPair::new` has only one non-recursive caller, because the recursive callers are all in this module. No functional changes.
---
I have used `git diff --color-moved` to verify that the moved code is identical to the old code, except for reduced visibility on the helper methods.
This comment has two problems:
- It is very long, making the flow of the enclosing method hard to follow.
- It starts by talking about an `autoref` flag that hasn't existed since #59114.
This PR therefore replaces the long inline comment with a revised doc comment
on `bind_matched_candidate_for_guard`, and some shorter inline comments.
For readers who want more historical context, we also link to the PR that added
the old comment, and the PR that removed the `autoref` flag.
Fix regression in the MIR lowering of or-patterns
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126553 I made a silly indexing mistake and regressed the MIR lowering of or-patterns. This fixes it.
r? `@compiler-errors` because I'd like this to be merged quickly 🙏
Support tail calls in mir via `TerminatorKind::TailCall`
This is one of the interesting bits in tail call implementation — MIR support.
This adds a new `TerminatorKind` which represents a tail call:
```rust
TailCall {
func: Operand<'tcx>,
args: Vec<Operand<'tcx>>,
fn_span: Span,
},
```
*Structurally* this is very similar to a normal `Call` but is missing a few fields:
- `destination` — tail calls don't write to destination, instead they pass caller's destination to the callee (such that eventual `return` will write to the caller of the function that used tail call)
- `target` — similarly to `destination` tail calls pass the caller's return address to the callee, so there is nothing to do
- `unwind` — I _think_ this is applicable too, although it's a bit confusing
- `call_source` — `become` forbids operators and is not created as a lowering of something else; tail calls always come from HIR (at least for now)
It might be helpful to read the interpreter implementation to understand what `TailCall` means exactly, although I've tried documenting it too.
-----
There are a few `FIXME`-questions still left, ideally we'd be able to answer them during review ':)
-----
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@scottmcm` `@DrMeepster` `@JakobDegen`
