match lowering: consistently lower bindings deepest-first
Currently when lowering match expressions to MIR, we do a funny little dance with the order of bindings. I attempt to explain it in the third commit: we handle refutable (i.e. needing a test) patterns differently than irrefutable ones. This leads to inconsistencies, as reported in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120210. The reason we need a dance at all is for situations like:
```rust
fn foo1(x: NonCopyStruct) {
let y @ NonCopyStruct { copy_field: z } = x;
// the above should turn into
let z = x.copy_field;
let y = x;
}
```
Here the `y ```````@```````` binding will move out of `x`, so we need to copy the field first.
I believe that the inconsistency came about when we fixed https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69971, and didn't notice that the fix didn't extend to refutable patterns. My guess then is that ordering bindings by "deepest-first, otherwise source order" is a sound choice. This PR implements that (at least I hope, match lowering is hard to follow 🥲).
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/120210
r? ```````@oli-obk``````` since you merged the original fix to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69971
cc ```````@matthewjasper```````
update indirect structural match lints to match RFC and to show up for dependencies
This is a large step towards implementing https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3535.
We currently have five lints related to "the structural match situation":
- nontrivial_structural_match
- indirect_structural_match
- pointer_structural_match
- const_patterns_without_partial_eq
- illegal_floating_point_literal_pattern
This PR concerns the first 3 of them. (The 4th already is set up to show for dependencies, and the 5th is removed by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116284.) nontrivial_structural_match is being removed as per the RFC; the other two are enabled to show up in dependencies.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73448 by removing the affected analysis.
Suggest `[tail @ ..]` on `[..tail]` and `[...tail]` where `tail` is unresolved
Fixes#120591.
~~Will conflict with #120570~~ (rebased).
r? estebank or compiler
make matching on NaN a hard error, and remove the rest of illegal_floating_point_literal_pattern
These arms would never be hit anyway, so the pattern makes little sense. We have had a future-compat lint against float matches in general for a *long* time, so I hope we can get away with immediately making this a hard error.
This is part of implementing https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3535.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41620 by removing the lint.
https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1456 updates the reference to match.
Add the `min_exhaustive_patterns` feature gate
## Motivation
Pattern-matching on empty types is tricky around unsafe code. For that reason, current stable rust conservatively requires arms for empty types in all but the simplest case. It has long been the intention to allow omitting empty arms when it's safe to do so. The [`exhaustive_patterns`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51085) feature allows the omission of all empty arms, but hasn't been stabilized because that was deemed dangerous around unsafe code.
## Proposal
This feature aims to stabilize an uncontroversial subset of exhaustive_patterns. Namely: when `min_exhaustive_patterns` is enabled and the data we're matching on is guaranteed to be valid by rust's operational semantics, then we allow empty arms to be omitted. E.g.:
```rust
let x: Result<T, !> = foo();
match x { // ok
Ok(y) => ...,
}
let Ok(y) = x; // ok
```
If the place is not guaranteed to hold valid data (namely ptr dereferences, ref dereferences (conservatively) and union field accesses), then we keep stable behavior i.e. we (usually) require arms for the empty cases.
```rust
unsafe {
let ptr: *const Result<u32, !> = ...;
match *ptr {
Ok(x) => { ... }
Err(_) => { ... } // still required
}
}
let foo: Result<u32, &!> = ...;
match foo {
Ok(x) => { ... }
Err(&_) => { ... } // still required because of the dereference
}
unsafe {
let ptr: *const ! = ...;
match *ptr {} // already allowed on stable
}
```
Note that we conservatively consider that a valid reference can point to invalid data, hence we don't allow arms of type `&!` and similar cases to be omitted. This could eventually change depending on [opsem decisions](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/413). Whenever opsem is undecided on a case, we conservatively keep today's stable behavior.
I proposed this behavior in the [`never_patterns`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118155) feature gate but it makes sense on its own and could be stabilized more quickly. The two proposals nicely complement each other.
## Unresolved Questions
Part of the question is whether this requires an RFC. I'd argue this doesn't need one since there is no design question beyond the intent to omit unreachable patterns, but I'm aware the problem can be framed in ways that require design (I'm thinking of the [original never patterns proposal](https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2018/08/13/never-patterns-exhaustive-matching-and-uninhabited-types-oh-my/), which would frame this behavior as "auto-nevering" happening).
EDIT: I initially proposed a future-compatibility lint as part of this feature, I don't anymore.
never patterns: Check bindings wrt never patterns
Never patterns:
- Shouldn't contain bindings since they never match anything;
- Don't count when checking that or-patterns have consistent bindings.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Fix scoping for let chains in match guards
If let guards were previously represented as a different type of guard in HIR and THIR. This meant that let chains in match guards were not handled correctly because they were treated exactly like normal guards.
- Remove `hir::Guard` and `thir::Guard`.
- Make the scoping different between normal guards and if let guards also check for let chains.
closes#118593
Exhaustiveness: Improve complexity on some wide matches
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118437 revealed an exponential case in exhaustiveness checking. While [exponential cases are unavoidable](https://compilercrim.es/rust-np/), this one only showed up after my https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117611 rewrite of the algorithm. I remember anticipating a case like this and dismissing it as unrealistic, but here we are :').
The tricky match is as follows:
```rust
match command {
BaseCommand { field01: true, .. } => {}
BaseCommand { field02: true, .. } => {}
BaseCommand { field03: true, .. } => {}
BaseCommand { field04: true, .. } => {}
BaseCommand { field05: true, .. } => {}
BaseCommand { field06: true, .. } => {}
BaseCommand { field07: true, .. } => {}
BaseCommand { field08: true, .. } => {}
BaseCommand { field09: true, .. } => {}
BaseCommand { field10: true, .. } => {}
// ...20 more of the same
_ => {}
}
```
To fix this, this PR formalizes a concept of "relevancy" (naming is hard) that was already used to decide what patterns to report. Now we track it for every row, which in wide matches like the above can drastically cut on the number of cases we explore. After this fix, the above match is checked with linear-many cases instead of exponentially-many.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118437
r? `@cjgillot`
never_patterns: Parse match arms with no body
Never patterns are meant to signal unreachable cases, and thus don't take bodies:
```rust
let ptr: *const Option<!> = ...;
match *ptr {
None => { foo(); }
Some(!),
}
```
This PR makes rustc accept the above, and enforces that an arm has a body xor is a never pattern. This affects parsing of match arms even with the feature off, so this is delicate. (Plus this is my first non-trivial change to the parser).
~~The last commit is optional; it introduces a bit of churn to allow the new suggestions to be machine-applicable. There may be a better solution? I'm not sure.~~ EDIT: I removed that commit
r? `@compiler-errors`
Add `never_patterns` feature gate
This PR adds the feature gate and most basic parsing for the experimental `never_patterns` feature. See the tracking issue (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118155) for details on the experiment.
`@scottmcm` has agreed to be my lang-team liaison for this experiment.
Rewrite exhaustiveness in one pass
This is at least my 4th attempt at this in as many years x) Previous attempts were all too complicated or too slow. But we're finally here!
The previous version of the exhaustiveness algorithm computed reachability for each arm then exhaustiveness of the whole match. Since each of these steps does roughly the same things, this rewrites the algorithm to do them all in one go. I also think this makes things much simpler.
I also rewrote the documentation of the algorithm in depth. Hopefully it's up-to-date and easier to follow now. Plz comment if anything's unclear.
r? `@oli-obk` I think you're one of the rare other people to understand the exhaustiveness algorithm?
cc `@varkor` I know you're not active anymore, but if you feel like having a look you might enjoy this :D
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79307
When writing a pattern to collect multiple entries of a slice in a
single binding, it is easy to misremember or typo the appropriate syntax
to do so, instead writing the experimental `X..` pattern syntax. When we
encounter a resolve error because `X` isn't available, we suggest
`X @ ..` as an alternative.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `rest` in this scope
--> $DIR/range-pattern-meant-to-be-slice-rest-pattern.rs:3:13
|
LL | [1, rest..] => println!("{rest:?}"),
| ^^^^ not found in this scope
|
help: if you meant to collect the rest of the slice in `rest`, use the at operator
|
LL | [1, rest @ ..] => println!("{rest:?}"),
| +
```
Fix#88404.
patterns: reject raw pointers that are not just integers
Matching against `0 as *const i32` is fine, matching against `&42 as *const i32` is not.
This extends the existing check against function pointers and wide pointers: we now uniformly reject all these pointer types during valtree construction, and then later lint because of that. See [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116930#issuecomment-1784654073) for some more explanation and context.
Also fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116929.
Cc `@oli-obk` `@lcnr`
