In all cases the struct can own the relevant thing instead of having a
reference to it. This makes the code simpler, and in some cases removes
a struct lifetime.
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.
Jump threading stores values as `u128` (`ScalarInt`) and does its
comparisons for equality as integer comparisons.
This works great for integers. Sadly, not everything is an integer.
Floats famously have wonky equality semantcs, with `NaN!=NaN` and
`0.0 == -0.0`. This does not match our beautiful integer bitpattern
equality and therefore causes things to go horribly wrong.
While jump threading could be extended to support floats by remembering
that they're floats in the value state and handling them properly,
it's signficantly easier to just disable it for now.
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`
detects redundant imports that can be eliminated.
for #117772 :
In order to facilitate review and modification, split the checking code and
removing redundant imports code into two PR.
