It mirrors `ExprKind::Binary`, and contains a `BinOpKind`. This makes
`AssocOp` more like `ExprKind`. Note that the variants removed from
`AssocOp` are all named differently to `BinOpToken`, e.g. `Multiply`
instead of `Mul`, so that's an inconsistency removed.
The commit adds `precedence` and `fixity` methods to `BinOpKind`, and
calls them from the corresponding methods in `AssocOp`. This avoids the
need to create an `AssocOp` from a `BinOpKind` in a bunch of places, and
`AssocOp::from_ast_binop` is removed.
`AssocOp::to_ast_binop` is also no longer needed.
Overall things are shorter and nicer.
`AssocOp::AssignOp` contains a `BinOpToken`. `ExprKind::AssignOp`
contains a `BinOpKind`. Given that `AssocOp` is basically a cut-down
version of `ExprKind`, it makes sense to make `AssocOp` more like
`ExprKind`. Especially given that `AssocOp` and `BinOpKind` use semantic
operation names (e.g. `Mul`, `Div`), but `BinOpToken` uses syntactic
names (e.g. `Star`, `Slash`).
This results in more concise code, and removes the need for various
conversions. (Note that the removed functions `hirbinop2assignop` and
`astbinop2assignop` are semantically identical, because `hir::BinOp` is
just a synonum for `ast::BinOp`!)
The only downside to this is that it allows the possibility of some
nonsensical combinations, such as `AssocOp::AssignOp(BinOpKind::Lt)`.
But `ExprKind::AssignOp` already has that problem. The problem can be
fixed for both types in the future with some effort, by introducing an
`AssignOpKind` type.
Simplify `Postorder` customization.
`Postorder` has a `C: Customization<'tcx>` parameter, that gives it flexibility about how it computes successors. But in practice, there are only two `impls` of `Customization`, and one is for the unit type.
This commit simplifies things by removing the generic parameter and replacing it with an `Option`.
r? ````@saethlin````
`Postorder` has a `C: Customization<'tcx>` parameter, that gives it
flexibility about how it computes successors. But in practice, there are
only two `impls` of `Customization`, and one is for the unit type.
This commit simplifies things by removing the generic parameter and
replacing it with an `Option`.
Lint `#[must_use]` attributes applied to methods in trait impls
The `#[must_use]` attribute has no effect when applied to methods in trait implementations. This PR adds it to the unused `#[must_use]` lint, and cleans the extra attributes in portable-simd and Clippy.
Continuing the work started in #136466.
Every method gains a `hir_` prefix, though for the ones that already
have a `par_` or `try_par_` prefix I added the `hir_` after that.
First of all, note that `Map` has three different relevant meanings.
- The `intravisit::Map` trait.
- The `map::Map` struct.
- The `NestedFilter::Map` associated type.
The `intravisit::Map` trait is impl'd twice.
- For `!`, where the methods are all unreachable.
- For `map::Map`, which gets HIR stuff from the `TyCtxt`.
As part of getting rid of `map::Map`, this commit changes `impl
intravisit::Map for map::Map` to `impl intravisit::Map for TyCtxt`. It's
fairly straightforward except various things are renamed, because the
existing names would no longer have made sense.
- `trait intravisit::Map` becomes `trait intravisit::HirTyCtxt`, so named
because it gets some HIR stuff from a `TyCtxt`.
- `NestedFilter::Map` assoc type becomes `NestedFilter::MaybeTyCtxt`,
because it's always `!` or `TyCtxt`.
- `Visitor::nested_visit_map` becomes `Visitor::maybe_tcx`.
I deliberately made the new trait and associated type names different to
avoid the old `type Map: Map` situation, which I found confusing. We now
have `type MaybeTyCtxt: HirTyCtxt`.
The end goal is to eliminate `Map` altogether.
I added a `hir_` prefix to all of them, that seemed simplest. The
exceptions are `module_items` which became `hir_module_free_items` because
there was already a `hir_module_items`, and `items` which became
`hir_free_items` for consistency with `hir_module_free_items`.
The wording unsafe pointer is less common and not mentioned in a lot of
places, instead this is usually called a "raw pointer". For the sake of
uniformity, we rename this method.
This came up during the review of
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134424.
tree-wide: parallel: Fully removed all `Lrc`, replaced with `Arc`
tree-wide: parallel: Fully removed all `Lrc`, replaced with `Arc`
This is continuation of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132282 .
I'm pretty sure I did everything right. In particular, I searched all occurrences of `Lrc` in submodules and made sure that they don't need replacement.
There are other possibilities, through.
We can define `enum Lrc<T> { Rc(Rc<T>), Arc(Arc<T>) }`. Or we can make `Lrc` a union and on every clone we can read from special thread-local variable. Or we can add a generic parameter to `Lrc` and, yes, this parameter will be everywhere across all codebase.
So, if you think we should take some alternative approach, then don't merge this PR. But if it is decided to stick with `Arc`, then, please, merge.
cc "Parallel Rustc Front-end" ( https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/113349 )
r? SparrowLii
`@rustbot` label WG-compiler-parallel
#[contracts::requires(...)] + #[contracts::ensures(...)]
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128044
Updated contract support: attribute syntax for preconditions and postconditions, implemented via a series of desugarings that culminates in:
1. a compile-time flag (`-Z contract-checks`) that, similar to `-Z ub-checks`, attempts to ensure that the decision of enabling/disabling contract checks is delayed until the end user program is compiled,
2. invocations of lang-items that handle invoking the precondition, building a checker for the post-condition, and invoking that post-condition checker at the return sites for the function, and
3. intrinsics for the actual evaluation of pre- and post-condition predicates that third-party verification tools can intercept and reinterpret for their own purposes (e.g. creating shims of behavior that abstract away the function body and replace it solely with the pre- and post-conditions).
Known issues:
* My original intent, as described in the MCP (https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/759) was to have a rustc-prefixed attribute namespace (like rustc_contracts::requires). But I could not get things working when I tried to do rewriting via a rustc-prefixed builtin attribute-macro. So for now it is called `contracts::requires`.
* Our attribute macro machinery does not provide direct support for attribute arguments that are parsed like rust expressions. I spent some time trying to add that (e.g. something that would parse the attribute arguments as an AST while treating the remainder of the items as a token-tree), but its too big a lift for me to undertake. So instead I hacked in something approximating that goal, by semi-trivially desugaring the token-tree attribute contents into internal AST constucts. This may be too fragile for the long-term.
* (In particular, it *definitely* breaks when you try to add a contract to a function like this: `fn foo1(x: i32) -> S<{ 23 }> { ... }`, because its token-tree based search for where to inject the internal AST constructs cannot immediately see that the `{ 23 }` is within a generics list. I think we can live for this for the short-term, i.e. land the work, and continue working on it while in parallel adding a new attribute variant that takes a token-tree attribute alongside an AST annotation, which would completely resolve the issue here.)
* the *intent* of `-Z contract-checks` is that it behaves like `-Z ub-checks`, in that we do not prematurely commit to including or excluding the contract evaluation in upstream crates (most notably, `core` and `std`). But the current test suite does not actually *check* that this is the case. Ideally the test suite would be extended with a multi-crate test that explores the matrix of enabling/disabling contracts on both the upstream lib and final ("leaf") bin crates.
includes post-developed commit: do not suggest internal-only keywords as corrections to parse failures.
includes post-developed commit: removed tabs that creeped in into rustfmt tool source code.
includes post-developed commit, placating rustfmt self dogfooding.
includes post-developed commit: add backquotes to prevent markdown checking from trying to treat an attr as a markdown hyperlink/
includes post-developed commit: fix lowering to keep contracts from being erroneously inherited by nested bodies (like closures).
Rebase Conflicts:
- compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs
- compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/item.rs
- compiler/rustc_span/src/hygiene.rs
Remove contracts keywords from diagnostic messages
Do not consider child bound assumptions for rigid alias
r? lcnr
See first commit for the important details. For second commit, I also stacked a somewhat opinionated name change, though I can separate that if needed.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/149
Get rid of `mir::Const::from_ty_const`
This function is strange, because it turns valtrees into `mir::Const::Value`, but the rest of the const variants stay as type system consts.
All of the callsites except for one in `instsimplify` (array length simplification of `ptr_metadata` call) just go through the valtree arm of the function, so it's easier to just create a `mir::Const` directly for those.
For the instsimplify case, if we have a type system const we should *keep* having a type system const, rather than turning it into a `mir::Const::Value`; it doesn't really matter in practice, though, bc `usize` has no padding, but it feels more principled.
Begin to implement type system layer of unsafe binders
Mostly TODOs, but there's a lot of match arms that are basically just noops so I wanted to split these out before I put up the MIR lowering/projection part of this logic.
r? oli-obk
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130516
