Now that we made `resolve_lifetimes` into a query, elision errors no
longer abort compilation, which affects some tests.
Also, remove `dep_graph_crosscontaminate_tables` -- there is no a path in
the dep-graph, though red-green handles it. The same scenario
is (correctly) tested by issue-42602.rs in any case.
I also added some comments explaining what is going on. In short, the
changes in question do not, in fact, affect the`TypeckTables` in any
semantic way. However, altering the order of lowering can cause it
appear to affect the `TypeckTables`: if we lower generics before the
body, then the `HirId` for things in the body will be affected. In
this case, we are now lowering the generics etc
*after* the body, so the hash no longer changes. This seems good.
update let-expressions hash test to use `except`
A part of #44924, this PR updated let-expressions test using `except`.
cc @michaelwoerister
r? @nikomatsakis
update match-expressions.rs with DepNode labels
As a part of #44924, I have updated the match-expressions.rs. The PR has tests verified for the following dependency nodes for let-expressions
- MirValidated
- MirOptimized
- TypeCheckTables
- TypeOfItem
- GenericsOfItem
- PredicatesOfItem
- FnSignature
cc @michaelwoerister
r? @nikomatsakis
incr.comp.: Verify stability of incr. comp. hashes and clean up various other things.
The main contribution of this PR is that it adds the `-Z incremental-verify-ich` functionality. Normally, when the red-green tracking system determines that a certain query result has not changed, it does not re-compute the incr. comp. hash (ICH) for that query result because that hash is already known. `-Z incremental-verify-ich` tells the compiler to re-hash the query result and compare the new hash against the cached hash. This is a rather thorough way of
- testing hashing implementation stability,
- finding missing `[input]` annotations on `DepNodes`, and
- finding missing read-edges,
since both a missed read and a missing `[input]` annotation can lead to something being marked as green instead of red and thus will have a different hash than it should have.
Case in point, implementing this verification logic and activating it for all `src/test/incremental` tests has revealed several such oversights, all of which are fixed in this PR.
r? @nikomatsakis
DefaultImpl is a highly confusing name for what we now call auto impls,
as in `impl Send for ..`. The name auto impl is not formally decided
but for sanity anything is better than `DefaultImpl` which refers
neither to `default impl` nor to `impl Default`.
incr.comp.: Implement compiler diagnostic persistence.
This PR implements storing and loading diagnostics that the compiler generates and thus allows for emitting warnings during incremental compilation without actually re-evaluating the thing the warning originally came from. It also lays some groundwork for storing and loading type information and MIR in the incr. comp. cache.
~~It is still work in progress:~~
- ~~There's still some documentation to be added.~~
- ~~The way anonymous queries are handled might lead to duplicated emissions of warnings. Not sure if there is a better way or how frequent such duplication would be in practice.~~
Diagnostic message duplication is addressed separately in #45519.
r? @nikomatsakis
Now that we are visiting things in a different order during lowering,
adding parameters winds up affecting the HirIds assigned to thinks in
the method body, whereas it didn't before. We could fix this by
reordering the order in which we visit `generics` during lowering, but
this feels very fragile. Seems better to just let typeck tables be
dirty here.
Incremental compilation auto assert (with except)
cc @michaelwoerister
bors merged part 1, so this is a WIP of part 2 of #45009 -- auto asserting DepNodes depending on the type of node rustc_clean/dirty is attached to
Framework:
- [x] finish auto-detection for specified DepNodes
- [x] finish auto-detection for remaining DepNodes
Test Refactors:
- [x] consts.rs
- [x] enum_constructors.rs
- [x] extern_mods.rs
- [x] inherent_impls.rs
- [x] statics.rs
- [x] struct_constructors.rs
- ~~**BLOCKED** trait_defs.rs, see FIXME~~
- ~~**BLOCKED** trait_impls.rs~~
- [x] type_defs.rs
- [x] enum_defs.rs
This adds auto-assertion to `rustc_clean/dirty` and also implements
more comprehensive testing for
- src/test/incremental/hashes/enum_constructors.rs
- src/test/incremental/hashes/enum_defs.rs
- src/test/incremental/hashes/extern_mods.rs
- src/test/incremental/hashes/inherent_impls.rs
- src/test/incremental/hashes/statics.rs
- src/test/incremental/hashes/struct_constructors.rs
- src/test/incremental/hashes/type_defs.rs
trait_defs.rs and trait_impl.rs are blocked on a hard to triage
compiler ICE (at least hard for a newbie like me) having to do
with some DepNodes not getting computed for traits.
A FIXME has been added in the source to reflect this continued
work.
Update let-expressions.rs with DepNode labels
As a part of #44924, the PR has tests verified for the following dependency nodes for **let-expressions**
```
- MirValidated
- MirOptimized
- TypeCheckTables
- TypeOfItem
- GenericsOfItem
- PredicatesOfItem
- FnSignature
```
As we are more concerned with the function body, the following fingerprints do not change over compilation sessions.
```- TypeOfItem
- GenericsOfItem
- PredicatesOfItem
- FnSignature
```
r? @nikomatsakis
cc @michaelwoerister
P.S. Will add more tests as and when possible :)
incr compilation struct_defs.rs
I am prematurely openeing this as I need mentoring help from @michaelwoerister (also pinged @nikomatsakis)
First, is this the right approach for these changes?
Second, I'm a bit confused by the results so far.
- Changing `TupleStructFieldType(i32)` -> `...(u32)` changes only Hir and HirBody, not TypeOfItem
- Chaning `TupleStructAddField(i32)` -> `...(i32, u32)` *does* change TypeOfItem
This seems wrong. I feel like it should change TypeOfItem in both cases. Is this a bug in incr compilation or is it expected?
Initial support for `..=` syntax
#28237
This PR adds `..=` as a synonym for `...` in patterns and expressions.
Since `...` in expressions was never stable, we now issue a warning.
cc @durka
r? @aturon
