Clarify constructor splitting in exhaustiveness checking
I reworked the explanation of the algorithm completely to make it properly account for the various extensions we've added. This includes constructor splitting, which was previously not clearly included in the algorithm. This makes wildcards less magical; I added some detailed examples; and this distinguishes clearly between constructors that only make sense in patterns (like ranges) and those that make sense for values (like `Some`). This reformulation had been floating around in my mind for a while, and I'm quite happy with how it turned out. Let me know how you feel about it.
I also factored out all three cases of splitting (wildcards, ranges and slices) into dedicated structs to encapsulate the complicated bits.
I measured no perf impact but I don't trust my local measurements for refactors since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79284.
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` modify labels: +A-exhaustiveness-checking
rustc_query_system: explicitly register reused dep nodes
Register nodes that we've reused from the previous session explicitly
with `OnDiskCache`. Previously, we relied on this happening as a side
effect of accessing the nodes in the `PreviousDepGraph`. For the sake of
performance and avoiding unintended side effects, register explictily.
Added [T; N]::zip()
This is my first PR to rust so I hope I have done everything right, or at least close :)
---
This is PR adds the array method `[T; N]::zip()` which, in my mind, is a natural extension to #75212.
My implementation of `zip()` is mostly just a modified copy-paste of `map()`. Should I keep the comments? Also am I right in assuming there should be no way for the `for`-loop to panic, thus no need for the dropguard seen in the `map()`-function?
The doc comment is in a similar way a slightly modified copy paste of [`Iterator::zip()`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#method.zip)
`@jplatte` mentioned in [#75490](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75490#issuecomment-677790758) `zip_with()`,
> zip and zip_with seem like they would be useful :)
is this something I should add (assuming there is interest for this PR at all :))
Rename `overlapping_patterns` lint
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65477. I also tweaked a few things along the way.
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` modify labels: +A-exhaustiveness-checking
Reserve necessary space for params in generics_of
Always reserve space for the exact number of generic parameters we need in generics_of. As far as I can see, the default is 0/4 elements based on has_self, and the vector grows on after that.
Acknowledge that `[CONST; N]` is stable
When `const_in_array_repeat_expressions` (RFC 2203) got unstably implemented as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61749, accidentally, the special case of repeating a *constant* got stabilized immediately. That is why the following code works on stable:
```rust
const EMPTY: Vec<i32> = Vec::new();
pub const fn bar() -> [Vec<i32>; 2] {
[EMPTY; 2]
}
fn main() {
let x = bar();
}
```
In contrast, if we had written `[expr; 2]` for some expression that is not *literally* a constant but could be evaluated at compile-time (e.g. `(EMPTY,).0`), this would have failed.
We could take back this stabilization as it was clearly accidental. However, I propose we instead just officially accept this and stabilize a small subset of RFC 2203, while leaving the more complex case of general expressions that could be evaluated at compile-time unstable. Making that case work well is pretty much blocked on inline `const` expressions (to avoid relying too much on [implicit promotion](https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/blob/master/promotion.md)), so it could take a bit until it comes to full fruition. `[CONST; N]` is an uncontroversial subset of this feature that has no semantic ambiguities, does not rely on promotion, and basically provides the full expressive power of RFC 2203 but without the convenience (people have to define constants to repeat them, possibly using associated consts if generics are involved).
Well, I said "no semantic ambiguities", that is only almost true... the one point I am not sure about is `[CONST; 0]`. There are two possible behaviors here: either this is equivalent to `let x = CONST; [x; 0]`, or it is a NOP (if we argue that the constant is never actually instantiated). The difference between the two is that if `CONST` has a destructor, it should run in the former case (but currently doesn't, due to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74836); but should not run if it is considered a NOP. For regular `[x; 0]` there seems to be consensus on running drop (there isn't really an alternative); any opinions for the `CONST` special case? Should this instantiate the const only to immediately run its destructors? That seems somewhat silly to me. After all, the `let`-expansion does *not* work in general, for `N > 1`.
Cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval`
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49147
Fix pretty printing an AST representing `&(mut ident)`
The PR fixes a misguiding help diagnostic in the parser that I reported in #80186. I discovered that the parsers recovery and reporting logic was correct but the pretty printer produced wrong code for the example. (Details in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80186#issuecomment-748498676)
Example:
```rust
#![allow(unused_variables)]
fn main() {
let mut &x = &0;
}
```
The AST fragment
`PatKind::Ref(PatKind::Ident(BindingMode::ByValue(Mutability::Mut), ..), Mutability::Not)`
was printed to be `&mut ident`. But this wouldn't round trip through parsing again, because then it would be:
`PatKind::Ref(PatKind::Ident(BindingMode::ByValue(Mutability::Not), ..), Mutability::Mut)`
Now the pretty-printer prints `&(mut ident)`. Reparsing that code results in the AST fragment
`PatKind::Ref(PatKind::Paren(PatKind::Ident(BindingMode::ByValue(Mutability::Mut), ..)), Mutability::Not)`
which I think should behave like the original pattern.
Old diagnostic:
```
error: `mut` must be attached to each individual binding
--> src/main.rs:3:9
|
3 | let mut &x = &0;
| ^^^^^^ help: add `mut` to each binding: `&mut x`
|
= note: `mut` may be followed by `variable` and `variable @ pattern`
```
New diagnostic:
```
error: `mut` must be attached to each individual binding
--> src/main.rs:3:9
|
3 | let mut &x = &0;
| ^^^^^^ help: add `mut` to each binding: `&(mut x)`
|
= note: `mut` may be followed by `variable` and `variable @ pattern`
```
Fixes#80186
Minor cleanups in LateResolver
- Avoid calculating hash twice
- Avoid creating a closure in every iteration of a loop
- Reserve space for path in advance
- Some readability changes
Cleanup markdown span handling
1. Get rid of `locate()` in markdown handling
This function was unfortunate for several reasons:
- It used `unsafe` because it wanted to tell whether a string came from
the same *allocation* as another, not just whether it was a textual match.
- It recalculated spans even though they were already available from pulldown
- It sometimes *failed* to calculate the span, which meant it was always possible for the span to be `None`, even though in practice that should never happen.
This has several cleanups:
- Make the span required
- Pass through the span from pulldown in the `HeadingLinks` and `Footnotes` iterators
- Only add iterator bounds on the `impl Iterator`, not on `new` and the struct itself.
2. Remove unnecessary scope in `markdown_links`
I recommend reading a single commit at a time.
cc ``@bugadani`` - this will conflict with https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77859, I'll try to make sure that gets merged first.
Handle desugaring in impl trait bound suggestion
Fixes#79843.
When an associated type of a generic function parameter needs extra bounds, the diagnostics may suggest replacing an `impl Trait` with a named type parameter so that it can be referenced in the where clause. On stable and nightly, the suggestion can be malformed, for instance transforming:
```rust
async fn run(_: &(), foo: impl Foo) -> std::io::Result<()>
```
Into:
```rust
async fn run(_: &, F: Foo(), foo: F) -> std::io::Result<()> where <F as Foo>::Bar: Send
^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Where we want something like:
```rust
async fn run<F: Foo>(_: &(), foo: F) -> std::io::Result<()> where <F as Foo>::Bar: Send
^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
The problem is that the elided lifetime of `&()` is added as a generic parameter when desugaring the async fn; the suggestion code sees this as an existing generic parameter and tries to use its span as an anchor to inject `F` into the parameter list. There doesn't seem to be an entirely principled way to check which generic parameters in the HIR were explicitly named in the source, so this commit changes the heuristics when generating the suggestion to only consider type parameters whose spans are contained within the span of the `Generics` when determining how to insert an additional type parameter into the declaration. (And to be safe it also excludes parameters whose spans are marked as originating from desugaring, although that doesn't seem to handle this elided lifetime.)
Edit rustc_middle docs
Re-word doc comment for rustc_middle::hir::place::Projection.
Also adds:
- Missing end stop punctuation, and
- Documentation links to `rustc_middle::mir::Place`.
Add array search aliases
Missed this in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80068. This one will really fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/46075.
The last alias especially I'm a little unsure about - maybe fuzzy search should be fixed in rustdoc instead? Happy to make that change although I'd have to figure out how.
r? ``@m-ou-se`` although cc ``@GuillaumeGomez`` for the search issue.
Fix failing build of std on armv5te-unknown-linux-uclibceabi due to missing cmsg_len_zero
I'm getting the following error when trying to build `std` on `armv5te-unknown-linux-uclibceabi`:
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `cmsg_len_zero` in this scope
--> /home/operutka/.rustup/toolchains/nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/rustlib/src/rust/library/std/src/sys/unix/ext/net/ancillary.rs:376:47
|
376 | let data_len = (*cmsg).cmsg_len - cmsg_len_zero;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not found in this scope
```
Obviously, this branch:
```rust
cfg_if::cfg_if! {
if #[cfg(any(target_os = "android", all(target_os = "linux", target_env = "gnu")))] {
let cmsg_len_zero = libc::CMSG_LEN(0) as libc::size_t;
} else if #[cfg(any(
target_os = "dragonfly",
target_os = "emscripten",
target_os = "freebsd",
all(target_os = "linux", target_env = "musl",),
target_os = "netbsd",
target_os = "openbsd",
))] {
let cmsg_len_zero = libc::CMSG_LEN(0) as libc::socklen_t;
}
}
```
does not cover the case `all(target_os = "linux", target_env = "uclibc")`.
This function was unfortunate for several reasons:
- It used `unsafe` because it wanted to tell whether a string came from
the same *allocation* as another, not just whether it was a textual
match.
- It recalculated spans even though they were already available from
pulldown
- It sometimes *failed* to calculate the span, which meant it was always
possible for the span to be `None`, even though in practice that
should never happen.
This commit has several cleanups:
- Make the span required
- Pass through the span from pulldown in the `HeadingLinks` and
`Footnotes` iterators
- Only add iterator bounds on the `impl Iterator`, not on `new` and the
struct itself.
Turn quadratic time on number of impl blocks into linear time
Previously, if you had a lot of inherent impl blocks on a type like:
```Rust
struct Foo;
impl Foo { fn foo_1() {} }
// ...
impl Foo { fn foo_100_000() {} }
```
The compiler would be very slow at processing it, because
an internal algorithm would run in O(n^2), where n is the number
of impl blocks. Now, we add a new algorithm that allocates but
is faster asymptotically.
Comparing rustc nightly with a local build of rustc as of this PR (results in seconds):
| N | real time before | real time after |
| - | - | - |
| 4_000 | 0.57 | 0.46 |
| 8_000 | 1.31 | 0.84 |
| 16_000 | 3.56 | 1.69 |
| 32_000 | 10.60 | 3.73 |
I've tuned up the numbers to make the effect larger than the startup noise of rustc, but the asymptotic difference should hold for smaller n as well.
Note: current state of the PR omits error messages if there are other errors present already. For now, I'm mainly interested in a perf run to study whether this issue is present at all. Please queue one for this PR. Thanks!
