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`.
Do not filter empty lint passes & re-do CTFE pass
Some structs implement `LintPass` without having a `Lint` associated with them #125116 broke that behaviour by filtering them out. This PR ensures that lintless passes are not filtered out.
Remove unnecessary pub enum glob-imports from `rustc_middle::ty`
We used to have an idiom in the compiler where we'd prefix or suffix all the variants of an enum, for example `BoundRegionKind`, with something like `Br`, and then *glob-import* that enum variant directly.
`@noratrieb` brought this up, and I think that it's easier to read when we just use the normal style `EnumName::Variant`.
This PR is a bit large, but it's just naming.
The only somewhat opinionated change that this PR does is rename `BorrowKind::Imm` to `BorrowKind::Immutable` and same for the other variants. I think these enums are used sparingly enough that the extra length is fine.
r? `@noratrieb` or reassign
Remove region from adjustments
It's not necessary to store this region, because it's only used in THIR and MemCat/ExprUse, both of which already basically only deal with erased regions anyways.
(Big performance change) Do not run lints that cannot emit
Before this change, adding a lint was a difficult matter because it always had some overhead involved. This was because all lints would run, no matter their default level, or if the user had `#![allow]`ed them. This PR changes that. This change would improve both the Rust lint infrastructure and Clippy, but Clippy will see the most benefit, as it has about 900 registered lints (and growing!)
So yeah, with this little patch we filter all lints pre-linting, and remove any lint that is either:
- Manually `#![allow]`ed in the whole crate,
- Allowed in the command line, or
- Not manually enabled with `#[warn]` or similar, and its default level is `Allow`
As some lints **need** to run, this PR also adds **loadbearing lints**. On a lint declaration, you can use the ``@eval_always` = true` marker to label it as loadbearing. A loadbearing lint will never be filtered (it will always run)
Fixes#106983
- removed extra bits from predicates queries that are no longer needed in the new system
- removed the need for `non_erasable_generics` to take in tcx and DefId, removed unused arguments in callers
Rollup of 4 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126588 (Added more scenarios where comma to be removed in the function arg)
- #131728 (bootstrap: extract builder cargo to its own module)
- #131968 (Rip out old effects var handling code from traits)
- #131981 (Remove the `BoundConstness::NotConst` variant)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Before this change, adding a lint was a difficult matter
because it always had some overhead involved. This was
because all lints would run, no matter their default level,
or if the user had #![allow]ed them. This PR changes that
Don't warn on proc macro generated code in `needless_return`
Fixes#13458Fixes#13457Fixes#13467Fixes#13479Fixes#13481Fixes#13526Fixes#13486
The fix is unfortunately a little more convoluted than just simply adding a `is_from_proc_macro`. That check *does* fix the issue, however it also introduces a bunch of false negatives in the tests, specifically when the returned expression is in a different syntax context, e.g. `return format!(..)`.
The proc macro check builds up a start and end pattern based on the HIR nodes and compares it to a snippet of the span, however that would currently fail for `return format!(..)` because we would have the patterns `("return", <something inside of the format macro>)`, which doesn't compare equal. So we now return an empty string pattern for when it's in a different syntax context.
"Hide whitespace" helps a bit for reviewing the proc macro detection change
changelog: none
Make opaque types regular HIR nodes
Having opaque types as HIR owner introduces all sorts of complications. This PR proposes to make them regular HIR nodes instead.
I haven't gone through all the test changes yet, so there may be a few surprises.
Many thanks to `@camelid` for the first draft.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129023Fixes#129099Fixes#125843Fixes#119716Fixes#121422
Stabilize the `map`/`value` methods on `ControlFlow`
And fix the stability attribute on the `pub use` in `core::ops`.
libs-api in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/75744#issuecomment-2231214910 seemed reasonably happy with naming for these, so let's try for an FCP.
Summary:
```rust
impl<B, C> ControlFlow<B, C> {
pub fn break_value(self) -> Option<B>;
pub fn map_break<T>(self, f: impl FnOnce(B) -> T) -> ControlFlow<T, C>;
pub fn continue_value(self) -> Option<C>;
pub fn map_continue<T>(self, f: impl FnOnce(C) -> T) -> ControlFlow<B, T>;
}
```
Resolves#75744
``@rustbot`` label +needs-fcp +t-libs-api -t-libs
---
Aside, in case it keeps someone else from going down the same dead end: I looked at the `{break,continue}_value` methods and tried to make them `const` as part of this, but that's disallowed because of not having `const Drop`, so put it back to not even unstably-const.
Refactoring to `OpaqueTyOrigin`
Pulled out of a larger PR that uses these changes to do cross-crate encoding of opaque origin, so we can use them for edition 2024 migrations. These changes should be self-explanatory on their own, tho 😄
