Because `TokenStreamIter` is a much better name for a `TokenStream`
iterator. Also rename the `TokenStream::trees` method as
`TokenStream::iter`, and some local variables.
Add some convenience helper methods on `hir::Safety`
Makes a lot of call sites simpler and should make any refactorings needed for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134090#issuecomment-2541332415 simpler, as fewer sites have to be touched in case we end up storing some information in the variants of `hir::Safety`
Remove support for specializing ToString outside the standard library
This is the only trait specializable outside of the standard library. Before stabilizing specialization we will probably want to remove support for this. It was originally made specializable to allow a more efficient ToString in libproc_macro back when this way the only way to get any data out of a TokenStream. We now support getting individual tokens, so proc macros no longer need to call it as often.
(Re-)Implement `impl_trait_in_bindings`
This reimplements the `impl_trait_in_bindings` feature for local bindings.
"`impl Trait` in bindings" serve as a form of *trait* ascription, where the type basically functions as an infer var but additionally registering the `impl Trait`'s trait bounds for the infer type. These trait bounds can be used to enforce that predicates hold, and can guide inference (e.g. for closure signature inference):
```rust
let _: impl Fn(&u8) -> &u8 = |x| x;
```
They are implemented as an additional set of bounds that are registered when the type is lowered during typeck, and then these bounds are tied to a given `CanonicalUserTypeAscription` for borrowck. We enforce these `CanonicalUserTypeAscription` bounds during borrowck to make sure that the `impl Trait` types are sensitive to lifetimes:
```rust
trait Static: 'static {}
impl<T> Static for T where T: 'static {}
let local = 1;
let x: impl Static = &local;
//~^ ERROR `local` does not live long enough
```
r? oli-obk
cc #63065
---
Why can't we just use TAIT inference or something? Well, TAITs in bodies have the problem that they cannot reference lifetimes local to a body. For example:
```rust
type TAIT = impl Display;
let local = 0;
let x: TAIT = &local;
//~^ ERROR `local` does not live long enough
```
That's because TAITs requires us to do *opaque type inference* which is pretty strict, since we need to remap all of the lifetimes of the hidden type to universal regions. This is simply not possible here.
---
I consider this part of the "impl trait everywhere" experiment. I'm not certain if this needs yet another lang team experiment.
Rename `ty_def_id` so people will stop using it by accident
This function is just for cycle detection, but people keep using it because they think it's the right way of getting the def id from a `Ty` (and I can't blame them necessarily).
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #133900 (Advent of `tests/ui` (misc cleanups and improvements) [1/N])
- #133937 (Keep track of parse errors in `mod`s and don't emit resolve errors for paths involving them)
- #133938 (`rustc_mir_dataflow` cleanups, including some renamings)
- #134058 (interpret: reduce usage of TypingEnv::fully_monomorphized)
- #134130 (Stop using driver queries in the public API)
- #134140 (Add AST support for unsafe binders)
- #134229 (Fix typos in docs on provenance)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add AST support for unsafe binders
I'm splitting up #130514 into pieces. It's impossible for me to keep up with a huge PR like that. I'll land type system support for this next, probably w/o MIR lowering, which will come later.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@BoxyUwU` and `@lcnr` who also may want to look at this, though this PR doesn't do too much yet
Keep track of parse errors in `mod`s and don't emit resolve errors for paths involving them
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around in the HIR and mark its `DefId` in the `Resolver`. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by expansion of `mod`s with parse errors.
Fix https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97734.
Move impl constness into impl trait header
This PR is kind of the opposite of the rejected https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134114
Instead of moving more things into the `constness` query, we want to keep them where their corresponding hir nodes are lowered. So I gave this a spin for impls, which have an obvious place to be (the impl trait header). And surprisingly it's also a perf improvement (likely just slightly better query & cache usage).
The issue was that removing anything from the `constness` query makes it just return `NotConst`, which is wrong. So I had to change it to `bug!` out if used wrongly, and only then remove the impl blocks from the `constness` query. I think this change is good in general, because it makes using `constness` more robust (as can be seen by how few sites that had to be changed, so it was almost solely used specifically for the purpose of asking for functions' constness). The main thing where this change was not great was in clippy, which was using the `constness` query as a general DefId -> constness map. I added a `DefKind` filter in front of that. If it becomes a more common pattern we can always move that helper into rustc.
When we expand a `mod foo;` and parse `foo.rs`, we now track whether that file had an unrecovered parse error that reached the end of the file. If so, we keep that information around. When resolving a path like `foo::bar`, we do not emit any errors for "`bar` not found in `foo`", as we know that the parse error might have caused `bar` to not be parsed and accounted for.
When this happens in an existing project, every path referencing `foo` would be an irrelevant compile error. Instead, we now skip emitting anything until `foo.rs` is fixed. Tellingly enough, we didn't have any test for errors caused by `mod` expansion.
Fix#97734.
Make `Copy` unsafe to implement for ADTs with `unsafe` fields
As a rule, the application of `unsafe` to a declaration requires that use-sites of that declaration also entail `unsafe`. For example, a field declared `unsafe` may only be read in the lexical context of an `unsafe` block.
For nearly all safe traits, the safety obligations of fields are explicitly discharged when they are mentioned in method definitions. For example, idiomatically implementing `Clone` (a safe trait) for a type with unsafe fields will require `unsafe` to clone those fields.
Prior to this commit, `Copy` violated this rule. The trait is marked safe, and although it has no explicit methods, its implementation permits reads of `Self`.
This commit resolves this by making `Copy` conditionally safe to implement. It remains safe to implement for ADTs without unsafe fields, but unsafe to implement for ADTs with unsafe fields.
Tracking: #132922
r? ```@compiler-errors```
fix ICE on type error in promoted
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/133968
Ensure that when we turn a type error into a "this promoted failed to evaluate" error, we do record this as something that may happen even in "infallible" promoteds.
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.
As a rule, the application of `unsafe` to a declaration requires that use-sites
of that declaration also require `unsafe`. For example, a field declared
`unsafe` may only be read in the lexical context of an `unsafe` block.
For nearly all safe traits, the safety obligations of fields are explicitly
discharged when they are mentioned in method definitions. For example,
idiomatically implementing `Clone` (a safe trait) for a type with unsafe fields
will require `unsafe` to clone those fields.
Prior to this commit, `Copy` violated this rule. The trait is marked safe, and
although it has no explicit methods, its implementation permits reads of `Self`.
This commit resolves this by making `Copy` conditionally safe to implement. It
remains safe to implement for ADTs without unsafe fields, but unsafe to
implement for ADTs with unsafe fields.
Tracking: #132922
Add lint against function pointer comparisons
This is kind of a follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117758 where we added a lint against wide pointer comparisons for being ambiguous and unreliable; well function pointer comparisons are also unreliable. We should IMO follow a similar logic and warn people about it.
-----
## `unpredictable_function_pointer_comparisons`
*warn-by-default*
The `unpredictable_function_pointer_comparisons` lint checks comparison of function pointer as the operands.
### Example
```rust
fn foo() {}
let a = foo as fn();
let _ = a == foo;
```
### Explanation
Function pointers comparisons do not produce meaningful result since they are never guaranteed to be unique and could vary between different code generation units. Furthermore different function could have the same address after being merged together.
----
This PR also uplift the very similar `clippy::fn_address_comparisons` lint, which only linted on if one of the operand was an `ty::FnDef` while this PR lints proposes to lint on all `ty::FnPtr` and `ty::FnDef`.
```@rustbot``` labels +I-lang-nominated
~~Edit: Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/libs-team/issues/323 being accepted and it's follow-up pr~~
Change `AttrArgs::Eq` to a struct variant
Cleanups for simplifying https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131808
Basically changes `AttrArgs::Eq` to a struct variant and then avoids several matches on `AttrArgsEq` in favor of methods on it. This will make future refactorings simpler, as they can either keep methods or switch to field accesses without having to restructure code
remove `Ty::is_copy_modulo_regions`
Using these functions is likely incorrect if an `InferCtxt` is available, I moved this function to `TyCtxt` (and added it to `LateContext`) and added a note to the documentation that one should prefer `Infer::type_is_copy_modulo_regions` instead.
I didn't yet move `is_sized` and `is_freeze`, though I think we should move these as well.
r? `@compiler-errors` cc #132279
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.
the behavior of the type system not only depends on the current
assumptions, but also the currentnphase of the compiler. This is
mostly necessary as we need to decide whether and how to reveal
opaque types. We track this via the `TypingMode`.
