This commit introduces 128-bit integers. Stage 2 builds and produces a working compiler which
understands and supports 128-bit integers throughout.
The general strategy used is to have rustc_i128 module which provides aliases for iu128, equal to
iu64 in stage9 and iu128 later. Since nowhere in rustc we rely on large numbers being supported,
this strategy is good enough to get past the first bootstrap stages to end up with a fully working
128-bit capable compiler.
In order for this strategy to work, number of locations had to be changed to use associated
max_value/min_value instead of MAX/MIN constants as well as the min_value (or was it max_value?)
had to be changed to use xor instead of shift so both 64-bit and 128-bit based consteval works
(former not necessarily producing the right results in stage1).
This commit includes manual merge conflict resolution changes from a rebase by @est31.
Prevent where < ident > from parsing.
In order to be forward compatible with `where<'a>` syntax for higher
rank parameters, prevent potential conflicts with UFCS from parsing
correctly for the near term.
In order to be forward compatible with `where<'a>` syntax for higher
rank parameters, prevent potential conflicts with UFCS from parsing
correctly for the near term.
Implement the `loop_break_value` feature.
This implements RFC 1624, tracking issue #37339.
- `FnCtxt` (in typeck) gets a stack of `LoopCtxt`s, which store the
currently deduced type of that loop, the desired type, and a list of
break expressions currently seen. `loop` loops get a fresh type
variable as their initial type (this logic is stolen from that for
arrays). `while` loops get `()`.
- `break {expr}` looks up the broken loop, and unifies the type of
`expr` with the type of the loop.
- `break` with no expr unifies the loop's type with `()`.
- When building MIR, loops no longer construct a `()` value at
termination of the loop; rather, the `break` expression assigns the
result of the loop.
- ~~I have also changed the loop scoping in MIR-building so that the test
of a while loop is not considered to be part of that loop. This makes
the rules consistent with #37360. The new loop scopes in typeck also
follow this rule. That means that `loop { while (break) {} }` now
terminates instead of looping forever. This is technically a breaking
change.~~
- ~~On that note, expressions like `while break {}` and `if break {}` no
longer parse because `{}` is interpreted as an expression argument to
`break`. But no code except compiler test cases should do that anyway
because it makes no sense.~~
- The RFC did not make it clear, but I chose to make `break ()` inside
of a `while` loop illegal, just in case we wanted to do anything with
that design space in the future.
This is my first time dealing with this part of rustc so I'm sure
there's plenty of problems to pick on here ^_^
This implements RFC 1624, tracking issue #37339.
- `FnCtxt` (in typeck) gets a stack of `LoopCtxt`s, which store the
currently deduced type of that loop, the desired type, and a list of
break expressions currently seen. `loop` loops get a fresh type
variable as their initial type (this logic is stolen from that for
arrays). `while` loops get `()`.
- `break {expr}` looks up the broken loop, and unifies the type of
`expr` with the type of the loop.
- `break` with no expr unifies the loop's type with `()`.
- When building MIR, `loop` loops no longer construct a `()` value at
termination of the loop; rather, the `break` expression assigns the
result of the loop. `while` loops are unchanged.
- `break` respects contexts in which expressions may not end with braced
blocks. That is, `while break { break-value } { while-body }` is
illegal; this preserves backwards compatibility.
- The RFC did not make it clear, but I chose to make `break ()` inside
of a `while` loop illegal, just in case we wanted to do anything with
that design space in the future.
This is my first time dealing with this part of rustc so I'm sure
there's plenty of problems to pick on here ^_^
Fix syntax error in the compiler
Currently `rustc` accepts the following code: `fn f<'a>() where 'a {}`. This should be a syntax error, shouldn't it?
Not sure if my changes actually compile, waiting for the LLVM to build.
Most of the Rust community agrees that the vec! macro is clearer when
called using square brackets [] instead of regular brackets (). Most of
these ocurrences are from before macros allowed using different types of
brackets.
There is one left unchanged in a pretty-print test, as the pretty
printer still wants it to have regular brackets.
