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.
Improve a bit HIR pretty printer
This PR improve (a bit) the HIR pretty printer.
It does so by:
- Not printing elided lifetimes (those are not expressible in surface Rust anyway)
- And by rendering implicit self with the shorthand syntax
I also tried fixing some indentation and other things but gave up for now.
Best reviewed commit by commit.
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
Skip parenthesis around tuple struct field calls
The pretty-printer previously did not distinguish between named vs unnamed fields when printing a function call containing a struct field. It would print the call as `(self.fun)()` for a named field which is correct, and `(self.0)()` for an unnamed field which is redundant.
This PR changes function calls of tuple struct fields to print without parens.
**Before:**
```rust
struct Tuple(fn());
fn main() {
let tuple = Tuple(|| {});
(tuple.0)();
}
```
**After:**
```rust
struct Tuple(fn());
fn main() {
let tuple = Tuple(|| {});
tuple.0();
}
```
`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.
Because `TokenStreamIter` is a much better name for a `TokenStream`
iterator. Also rename the `TokenStream::trees` method as
`TokenStream::iter`, and some local variables.
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.
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.
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #122670 (Fix bug where `option_env!` would return `None` when env var is present but not valid Unicode)
- #131095 (Use environment variables instead of command line arguments for merged doctests)
- #131339 (Expand set_ptr_value / with_metadata_of docs)
- #131652 (Move polarity into `PolyTraitRef` rather than storing it on the side)
- #131675 (Update lint message for ABI not supported)
- #131681 (Fix up-to-date checking for run-make tests)
- #131702 (Suppress import errors for traits that couldve applied for method lookup error)
- #131703 (Resolved python deprecation warning in publish_toolstate.py)
- #131710 (Remove `'apostrophes'` from `rustc_parse_format`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add `&pin (mut|const) T` type position sugar
This adds parser support for `&pin mut T` and `&pin const T` references. These are desugared to `Pin<&mut T>` and `Pin<&T>` in the AST lowering phases.
This PR currently includes #130526 since that one is in the commit queue. Only the most recent commits (bd450027eb4a94b814a7dd9c0fa29102e6361149 and following) are new.
Tracking:
- #130494
r? `@compiler-errors`
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
