Many, many projects use `size_of` to get the size of a type. However,
it's also often equally easy to hardcode a size (e.g. `8` instead of
`size_of::<u64>()`). Minimizing friction in the use of `size_of` helps
ensure that people use it and make code more self-documenting.
The name `size_of` is unambiguous: the name alone, without any prefix or
path, is self-explanatory and unmistakeable for any other functionality.
Adding it to the prelude cannot produce any name conflicts, as any local
definition will silently shadow the one from the prelude. Thus, we don't
need to wait for a new edition prelude to add it.
Add `size_of_val`, `align_of`, and `align_of_val` as well, with similar
justification: widely useful, self-explanatory, unmistakeable for
anything else, won't produce conflicts.
Unify `Rvalue::Aggregate` paths in cg_ssa
In #123840 and #123886 I added two different codepaths for `Rvalue::Aggregate` in `cg_ssa`.
This merges them into one, since raw pointers are also immediates that can be built from the immediates of their "fields".
Avoid clone in `Comments::next`
`Comments::next`, in `rustc_ast_pretty`, has this comment:
```
// FIXME: This shouldn't probably clone lmao
```
The obvious thing to try is to return `Option<&Comment>` instead of `Option<Comment>`. But that leads to multiple borrows all over the place, because `Comments` must be borrowed from `PrintState` and then processed by `&mut self` methods within `PrintState`.
This PR instead rearranges things so that comments are consumed as they are used, preserving the `Option<Comment>` return type without requiring any cloning.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Remove `#[macro_use] extern crate rustc middle` from numerous crates
Because explicit importing of macros via `use` items is nicer (more standard and readable) than implicit importing via `#[macro_use]`. This PR mops up some cases I didn't get to in #124511.
r? `@saethlin`
The current way of stepping through each comment in `Comments` is a bit
weird. There is a `Vec<Comments>` and a `current` index, which is fine.
The `Comments::next` method clones the current comment but doesn't
advance `current`; the advancing instead happens in `print_comment`,
which is where each cloned comment is actually finally used (or not, in
some cases, if the comment fails to satisfy a predicate).
This commit makes things more iterator-like:
- `Comments::next` now advances `current` instead of `print_comment`.
- `Comments::peek` is added so you can inspect a comment and check a
predicate without consuming it.
- This requires splitting `PrintState::comments` into immutable and
mutable versions. The commit also moves the ref inside the `Option` of
the return type, to save callers from having to use `as_ref`/`as_mut`.
- It also requires adding `PrintState::peek_comment` alongside the
existing `PrintState::next_comment`. (The lifetimes in the signature
of `peek_comment` ended up more complex than I expected.)
We now have a neat separation between consuming (`next`) and
non-consuming (`peek`) uses of each comment. As well as being clearer,
this will facilitate the next commit that avoids unnecessary cloning.
Pretty-print let-else with added parenthesization when needed
Rustc used to produce invalid syntax for the following code, which is problematic because it means we cannot apply rustfmt to the output of `-Zunpretty=expanded`.
```rust
macro_rules! expr {
($e:expr) => { $e };
}
fn main() {
let _ = expr!(loop {}) else { return; };
}
```
```console
$ rustc repro.rs -Zunpretty=expanded | rustfmt
error: `loop...else` loops are not supported
--> <stdin>:9:29
|
9 | fn main() { let _ = loop {} else { return; }; }
| ---- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| |
| `else` is attached to this loop
|
= note: consider moving this `else` clause to a separate `if` statement and use a `bool` variable to control if it should run
```
Unfortunately, we can't always offer a machine-applicable suggestion when there are subpatterns from macro expansion.
Co-Authored-By: Guillaume Boisseau <Nadrieril@users.noreply.github.com>
solve: all "non-structural" logging to trace
This enables us to start with `RUSTC_LOG=rustc_trait_selection::solve=debug` to figure out *where* something went wrong, to then separately use `trace` to get to the details.
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Fix, document, and test parser and pretty-printer edge cases related to braced macro calls
_Review note: this is a deceptively small PR because it comes with 145 lines of docs and 196 lines of tests, and only 25 lines of compiler code changed. However, I recommend reviewing it 1 commit at a time because much of the effect of the code changes is non-local i.e. affecting code that is not visible in the final state of the PR. I have paid attention that reviewing the PR one commit at a time is as easy as I can make it. All of the code you need to know about is touched in those commits, even if some of those changes disappear by the end of the stack._
This is a follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119105. One case that is not relevant to `-Zunpretty=expanded`, but which came up as I'm porting #119105 and #118726 into `syn`'s printer and `prettyplease`'s printer where it **is** relevant, and is also relevant to rustc's `stringify!`, is statement boundaries in the vicinity of braced macro calls.
Rustc's AST pretty-printer produces invalid syntax for statements that begin with a braced macro call:
```rust
macro_rules! stringify_item {
($i:item) => {
stringify!($i)
};
}
macro_rules! repro {
($e:expr) => {
stringify_item!(fn main() { $e + 1; })
};
}
fn main() {
println!("{}", repro!(m! {}));
}
```
**Before this PR:** output is not valid Rust syntax.
```console
fn main() { m! {} + 1; }
```
```console
error: leading `+` is not supported
--> <anon>:1:19
|
1 | fn main() { m! {} + 1; }
| ^ unexpected `+`
|
help: try removing the `+`
|
1 - fn main() { m! {} + 1; }
1 + fn main() { m! {} 1; }
|
```
**After this PR:** valid syntax.
```console
fn main() { (m! {}) + 1; }
```
Uplift various `*Predicate` types into `rustc_type_ir`
Uplifts `ProjectionPredicate`, `ExistentialTraitRef`, `ExistentialProjection`, `TraitPredicate`, `NormalizesTo`, `CoercePredicate`, and `SubtypePredicate`.
Adds `rustc_type_ir_macros`, which semi-duplicates the derive for `TypeVisitable`, `TypeFoldable`, and `Lift`, but in a way that is interner-agnostic.
Moves `rustc_type_ir::trait_ref` to `rustc_type_ir::predicate`. The specific placement of all these structs doesn't matter b/c of glob imports, tho.
Refactoring after the `PlaceValue` addition
I added [`PlaceValue`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_codegen_ssa/mir/place/struct.PlaceValue.html) in #123775, but kept that one line-by-line simple because it touched so many places.
This goes through to add more helpers & docs, and change some `PlaceRef` to `PlaceValue` where the type didn't need to be included.
No behaviour changes -- the codegen is exactly the same.
It is impossible for expr here to be a braced macro call. Expr comes
from `parse_stmt_without_recovery`, in which macro calls are parsed by
`parse_stmt_mac`. See this part:
let kind = if (style == MacStmtStyle::Braces
&& self.token != token::Dot
&& self.token != token::Question)
|| self.token == token::Semi
|| self.token == token::Eof
{
StmtKind::MacCall(P(MacCallStmt { mac, style, attrs, tokens: None }))
} else {
// Since none of the above applied, this is an expression statement macro.
let e = self.mk_expr(lo.to(hi), ExprKind::MacCall(mac));
let e = self.maybe_recover_from_bad_qpath(e)?;
let e = self.parse_expr_dot_or_call_with(e, lo, attrs)?;
let e = self.parse_expr_assoc_with(
0,
LhsExpr::AlreadyParsed { expr: e, starts_statement: false },
)?;
StmtKind::Expr(e)
};
A braced macro call at the head of a statement is always either extended
into ExprKind::Field / MethodCall / Await / Try / Binary, or else
returned as StmtKind::MacCall. We can never get a StmtKind::Expr
containing ExprKind::MacCall containing brace delimiter.
The change to the test is a little goofy because the compiler was
guessing "correctly" before that `falsy! {}` is the condition as opposed
to the else body. But I believe this change is fundamentally correct.
Braced macro invocations in statement position are most often item-like
(`thread_local! {...}`) as opposed to parenthesized macro invocations
which are condition-like (`cfg!(...)`).
I didn't figure out how to reach this condition with `expr` containing
`ExprKind::MacCall`. All the approaches I tried ended up with the macro
call ending up in the `StmtKind::MacCall` case below instead.
In any case, from visual inspection this is a bugfix. If we do end up
with a `StmtKind::Expr` containing `ExprKind::MacCall` with brace
delimiter, it would not need ";" printed after it.
This commit by itself is supposed to have no effect on behavior. All of
the call sites are updated to preserve their previous behavior.
The behavior changes are in the commits that follow.
For each of these, we need to decide whether they need to be using
`expr_requires_semi_to_be_stmt`, or `expr_requires_comma_to_be_match_arm`,
which are supposed to be 2 different behaviors. Previously they were
conflated into one, causing either too much or too little
parenthesization.
