Use more slice patterns inside the compiler
Nothing super noteworthy. Just replacing the common 'fragile' pattern of "length check followed by indexing or unwrap" with slice patterns for legibility and 'robustness'.
r? ghost
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.
This is needed to track anon const parents properly once we implement
`ConstArgKind::Path` (which requires moving anon const def-creation
outside of `DefCollector`):
Why do we need this in addition to [`Self::current_hir_id_owner`]?
Currently (as of June 2024), anonymous constants are not HIR owners;
however, they do get their own DefIds. Some of these DefIds have to be
created during AST lowering, rather than def collection, because we
can't tell until after name resolution whether an anonymous constant
will end up instead being a [`rustc_hir::ConstArgKind::Path`]. However,
to compute which generics are available to an anonymous constant nested
inside another, we need to make sure that the parent is recorded as the
parent anon const, not the enclosing item. So we need to track parent
defs differently from HIR owners, since they will be finer-grained in
the case of anon consts.
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126618 (Mark assoc tys live only if the corresponding trait is live)
- #126746 (Deny `use<>` for RPITITs)
- #126868 (not use offset when there is not ends with brace)
- #126884 (Do not ICE when suggesting dereferencing closure arg)
- #126893 (Eliminate the distinction between PREC_POSTFIX and PREC_PAREN precedence level)
- #126915 (Don't suggest awaiting in closure patterns)
- #126943 (De-duplicate all consecutive native libs regardless of their options)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Deny `use<>` for RPITITs
Precise capturing `use<>` syntax is currently a no-op on RPITITs, since GATs have no variance, so all captured lifetimes are captured invariantly.
We don't currently *need* to support `use<>` on RPITITs, since `use<>` is initially intended for migrating RPIT *overcaptures* from edition 2021->2024, but since RPITITs currently capture all in-scope lifetimes, we'll never need to write `use<>` on an RPITIT.
Eventually, though, it would be desirable to support precise capturing on RPITITs, since RPITITs overcapturing by default can be annoying to some folks. But let's separate that (which will likely require some delicate types team work for adding variances to GATs and adjusting the refinement rules) from the stabilization of the feature for edition 2024.
r? oli-obk cc ``@traviscross``
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123432
Place tail expression behind terminating scope
This PR implements #123739 so that we can do further experiments in nightly.
A little rewrite has been applied to `for await` lowering. It was previously `unsafe { Pin::unchecked_new(into_async_iter(..)) }`. Under the edition 2024 rule, however, `into_async_iter` gets dropped at the end of the `unsafe` block. This presumably the first Edition 2024 migration rule goes by hoisting `into_async_iter(..)` into `match` one level above, so it now looks like the following.
```rust
match into_async_iter($iter_expr) {
ref mut iter => match unsafe { Pin::unchecked_new(iter) } {
...
}
}
```
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`).
Parse unsafe attributes
Initial parse implementation for #123757
This is the initial work to parse unsafe attributes, which is represented as an extra `unsafety` field in `MetaItem` and `AttrItem`. There's two areas in the code where it appears that parsing is done manually and not using the parser stuff, and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to thread the change there.
