We want to allow setting this on the CLI, override it only in MIR
passes, and disable it altogether in mir-opt tests.
The default value is "only for NLL MIR dumps", which is considered off
for all intents and purposes, except for `rustc_borrowck` when an NLL
MIR dump is requested.
Several compiler functions have `Option<!>` for their return type.
That's odd. The only valid return value is `None`, so why is this type
used?
Because it lets you write certain patterns slightly more concisely. E.g.
if you have these common patterns:
```
let Some(a) = f() else { return };
let Ok(b) = g() else { return };
```
you can shorten them to these:
```
let a = f()?;
let b = g().ok()?;
```
Huh.
An `Option` return type typically designates success/failure. How should
I interpret the type signature of a function that always returns (i.e.
doesn't panic), does useful work (modifying `&mut` arguments), and yet
only ever fails? This idiom subverts the type system for a cute
syntactic trick.
Furthermore, returning `Option<!>` from a function F makes things
syntactically more convenient within F, but makes things worse at F's
callsites. The callsites can themselves use `?` with F but should not,
because they will get an unconditional early return, which is almost
certainly not desirable. Instead the return value should be ignored.
(Note that some of callsites of `process_operand`, `process_immedate`,
`process_assign` actually do use `?`, though the early return doesn't
matter in these cases because nothing of significance comes after those
calls. Ugh.)
When I first saw this pattern I had no idea how to interpret it, and it
took me several minutes of close reading to understand everything I've
written above. I even started a Zulip thread about it to make sure I
understood it properly. "Save a few characters by introducing types so
weird that compiler devs have to discuss it on Zulip" feels like a bad
trade-off to me. This commit replaces all the `Option<!>` return values
and uses `else`/`return` (or something similar) to replace the relevant
`?` uses. The result is slightly more verbose but much easier to
understand.
This keeps it up-to-date by moving from 0.5.6 to 0.5.7. While here I've
additionally updated some other wasm-related dependencies in the
workspace to keep them up-to-date and try to avoid duplicate versions as
well.
The test code did have an inference failure, but that would have failed
on Rust 1.79 and earlier too. Now it is rewritten to be specifically
affected by 1.80's `impl FromIterator<_> for Box<str>`.
This commit fixes an assert in the WASI-specific implementation of
thread sleep to ensure that sleeping for a very large period of time
blocks instead of panicking. This can come up when testing programs that
sleep "forever", for example.
Use a reduced recursion limit in the MIR inliner's cycle breaker
This probably papers over https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128887, but primarily I'm opening this PR because multiple compiler people have thought about making this change which probably means it's a good idea.
r? compiler-errors
