Don't omit comma when suggesting wildcard arm after macro expr
* Also adds `Span::eq_ctxt` to consolidate the various usages of `span.ctxt() == other.ctxt()`
* Also fixes an unhygenic usage of spans which caused the suggestion to render weirdly when we had one arm match in a macro
* Also always suggests a comma (i.e. even after a block) if we're rendering a wildcard arm in a single-line match (looks prettier 🌹)
Fixes#94866
Fix `SourceScope` for `if let` bindings.
Fixes#97799.
I'm not sure how to test this properly, is there any way to observe the difference in behavior apart from `ui` tests? I'm worried that they would be overlooked in the case of a regression.
This commit removes the `a == b` early return, which isn't useful in
practice, and replaces it with one that helps matches with many ranges,
including char ranges.
The code is clearer and simpler without it. Note that the `a == b` early
return at the top of the function means the `a == b` test at the end of
the function could never succeed.
It's never executed when running the entire test suite. I think it's
because of the early return at the top of the function if `a.ty() != ty`
succeeds.
This is a performance win for `unicode-normalization`.
The commit also removes the closure, which isn't necessary. And
reformulates the comparison into a form I find easier to read.
Make `ExprKind::Closure` a struct variant.
Simple refactor since we both need it to introduce additional fields in `ExprKind::Closure`.
r? ``@Aaron1011``
And likewise for the `Const::val` method.
Because its type is called `ConstKind`. Also `val` is a confusing name
because `ConstKind` is an enum with seven variants, one of which is
called `Value`. Also, this gives consistency with `TyS` and `PredicateS`
which have `kind` fields.
The commit also renames a few `Const` variables from `val` to `c`, to
avoid confusion with the `ConstKind::Value` variant.
Fix precise field capture of univariant enums
When constructing a MIR from a THIR field expression, introduce an
additional downcast projection before accessing a field of an enum.
When rebasing a place builder on top of a captured place, account for
the fact that a single HIR enum field projection corresponds to two MIR
projection elements: a downcast element and a field element.
Fixes#95271.
Fixes#96299.
Fixes#96512.
Fixes#97378.
r? ``@nikomatsakis`` ``@arora-aman``
Try to cache region_scope_tree as a query
This PR will attempt to restore `region_scope_tree` as a query so that caching works again. It seems that `region_scope_tree` could be re-computed for nested items after all, which could explain the performance regression introduced by #95563.
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` `@pnkfelix` I will try to trigger a perf run here.
Output correct type responsible for structural match violation
Previously we included the outermost type that caused a structural match violation in the error message and stated that that type must be annotated with `#[derive(Eq, PartialEq)]` even if it already had that annotation. This PR outputs the correct type in the error message.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97278
Modify MIR building to drop repeat expressions with length zero
Closes#74836 .
Previously, when a user wrote `[foo; 0]` we used to simply leak `foo`. The goal is to fix that. This PR changes MIR building to make `[foo; 0]` equivalent to `{ drop(foo); [] }` in all cases. Of course, this is a breaking change (see below). A crater run did not indicate any regressions though, and given that the previous behavior was almost definitely not what any user wanted, it seems unlikely that anyone was relying on this.
Note that const generics are in general unaffected by this. Inserting the extra `drop` is only meaningful/necessary when `foo` is of a non-`Copy` type, and array repeat expressions with const generic repetition count must always be `Copy`.
Besides the obvious change to behavior associated with the additional drop, there are three categories of examples where this also changes observable behavior. In all of these cases, the new behavior is consistent with what you would get by replacing `[foo; 0]` with `{ drop(foo); [] }`. As such, none of these give the user new powers to express more things.
**No longer allowed in const (breaking)**:
```rust
const _: [String; 0] = [String::new(); 0];
```
This compiles on stable today. Because we now introduce the drop of `String`, this no longer compiles as `String` may not be dropped in a const context.
**Reduced dataflow (non-breaking)**:
```rust
let mut x: i32 = 0;
let r = &x;
let a = [r; 0];
x = 5;
let _b = a;
```
Borrowck rejects this code on stable because it believes there is dataflow between `a` and `r`, and so the lifetime of `r` has to extend to the last statement. This change removes the dataflow and the above code is allowed to compile.
**More const promotion (non-breaking)**:
```rust
let _v: &'static [String; 0] = &[String::new(); 0];
```
This does not compile today because `String` having drop glue keeps it from being const promoted (despite that drop glue never being executed). After this change, this is allowed to compile.
### Alternatives
A previous attempt at this tried to reduce breakage by various tricks. This is still a possibility, but given that crater showed no regressions it seems unclear why we would want to introduce this complexity.
Disallowing `[foo; 0]` completely is also an option, but obviously this is more of a breaking change. I do not know how often this is actually used though.
r? `@oli-obk`
