`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.
Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681.
Support default fields in enum struct variant
Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition:
```rust
pub enum Bar {
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant
```rust
Bar::Foo { .. }
```
`#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants.
Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields
```rust
pub enum Bar {
#[default]
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build.
Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled).
Properly instantiate MIR const
The following works:
```rust
struct S<A> {
a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(),
}
S::<i32> { .. }
```
Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval
We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users'
getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error
that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to
*always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted.
This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the
expression relies on a const parameter.
Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`:
- Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields.
- Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values.
- Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
Eliminate magic numbers from expression precedence
Context: see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133140.
This PR continues on backporting Syn's expression precedence design into rustc. Rustc's design used mysterious integer quantities represented variously as `i8` or `usize` (e.g. `PREC_CLOSURE = -40i8`), a special significance around `0` that is never named, and an extra `PREC_FORCE_PAREN` precedence level that does not correspond to any expression. Syn's design uses a C-like enum with variants that clearly correspond to specific sets of expression kinds.
This PR is a refactoring that has no intended behavior change on its own, but it unblocks other precedence work that rustc's precedence design was poorly suited to accommodate.
- Asymmetrical precedence, so that a pretty-printer can tell `(return 1) + 1` needs parens but `1 + return 1` does not.
- Squashing the `Closure` and `Jump` cases into a single precedence level.
- Numerous remaining false positives and false negatives in rustc pretty-printer's parenthesization of macro metavariables, for example in `$e < rhs` where $e is `lhs as Thing<T>`.
FYI `@fmease` — you don't need to review if rustbot picks someone else, but you mentioned being interested in the followup PRs.
Remove `hir::ArrayLen`
This refactoring removes `hir::ArrayLen`, replacing it with `hir::ConstArg`. To represent inferred array lengths (previously `hir::ArrayLen::Infer`), a new variant `ConstArgKind::Infer` is added.
r? `@BoxyUwU`
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.
Support ?Trait bounds in supertraits and dyn Trait under a feature gate
This patch allows `maybe` polarity bounds under a feature gate. The only language change here is that corresponding hard errors are replaced by feature gates. Example:
```rust
#![feature(allow_maybe_polarity)]
...
trait Trait1 : ?Trait { ... } // ok
fn foo(_: Box<(dyn Trait2 + ?Trait)>) {} // ok
fn bar<T: ?Sized + ?Trait>(_: &T) {} // ok
```
Maybe bounds still don't do anything (except for `Sized` trait), however this patch will allow us to [experiment with default auto traits](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120706#issuecomment-1934006762).
This is a part of the [MCP: Low level components for async drop](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/727)
`#[naked]`: use an allowlist for allowed options on `asm!` in naked functions
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/90957
this is mostly just a refactor, but using an allowlist (rather than a denylist) for which asm options are allowed in naked functions is a little safer.
These options are disallowed because naked functions are effectively global asm, but defined using inline asm.
This is a very large commit since a lot needs to be changed in order to
make the tests pass. The salient changes are:
- `ConstArgKind` gets a new `Path` variant, and all const params are now
represented using it. Non-param paths still use `ConstArgKind::Anon`
to prevent this change from getting too large, but they will soon use
the `Path` variant too.
- `ConstArg` gets a distinct `hir_id` field and its own variant in
`hir::Node`. This affected many parts of the compiler that expected
the parent of an `AnonConst` to be the containing context (e.g., an
array repeat expression). They have been changed to check the
"grandparent" where necessary.
- Some `ast::AnonConst`s now have their `DefId`s created in
rustc_ast_lowering rather than `DefCollector`. This is because in some
cases they will end up becoming a `ConstArgKind::Path` instead, which
has no `DefId`. We have to solve this in a hacky way where we guess
whether the `AnonConst` could end up as a path const since we can't
know for sure until after name resolution (`N` could refer to a free
const or a nullary struct). If it has no chance as being a const
param, then we create a `DefId` in `DefCollector` -- otherwise we
decide during ast_lowering. This will have to be updated once all path
consts use `ConstArgKind::Path`.
- We explicitly use `ConstArgHasType` for array lengths, rather than
implicitly relying on anon const type feeding -- this is due to the
addition of `ConstArgKind::Path`.
- Some tests have their outputs changed, but the changes are for the
most part minor (including removing duplicate or almost-duplicate
errors). One test now ICEs, but it is for an incomplete, unstable
feature and is now tracked at #127009.
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
Rename HIR `TypeBinding` to `AssocItemConstraint` and related cleanup
Rename `hir::TypeBinding` and `ast::AssocConstraint` to `AssocItemConstraint` and update all items and locals using the old terminology.
Motivation: The terminology *type binding* is extremely outdated. "Type bindings" not only include constraints on associated *types* but also on associated *constants* (feature `associated_const_equality`) and on RPITITs of associated *functions* (feature `return_type_notation`). Hence the word *item* in the new name. Furthermore, the word *binding* commonly refers to a mapping from a binder/identifier to a "value" for some definition of "value". Its use in "type binding" made sense when equality constraints (e.g., `AssocTy = Ty`) were the only kind of associated item constraint. Nowadays however, we also have *associated type bounds* (e.g., `AssocTy: Bound`) for which the term *binding* doesn't make sense.
---
Old terminology (HIR, rustdoc):
```
`TypeBinding`: (associated) type binding
├── `Constraint`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: (associated) equality constraint (?)
├── `Ty`: (associated) type binding
└── `Const`: associated const equality (constraint)
```
Old terminology (AST, abbrev.):
```
`AssocConstraint`
├── `Bound`
└── `Equality`
├── `Ty`
└── `Const`
```
New terminology (AST, HIR, rustdoc):
```
`AssocItemConstraint`: associated item constraint
├── `Bound`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: associated item equality constraint OR associated item binding (for short)
├── `Ty`: associated type equality constraint OR associated type binding (for short)
└── `Const`: associated const equality constraint OR associated const binding (for short)
```
r? compiler-errors
