Clarify constructor splitting in exhaustiveness checking
I reworked the explanation of the algorithm completely to make it properly account for the various extensions we've added. This includes constructor splitting, which was previously not clearly included in the algorithm. This makes wildcards less magical; I added some detailed examples; and this distinguishes clearly between constructors that only make sense in patterns (like ranges) and those that make sense for values (like `Some`). This reformulation had been floating around in my mind for a while, and I'm quite happy with how it turned out. Let me know how you feel about it.
I also factored out all three cases of splitting (wildcards, ranges and slices) into dedicated structs to encapsulate the complicated bits.
I measured no perf impact but I don't trust my local measurements for refactors since https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/79284.
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` modify labels: +A-exhaustiveness-checking
rustc_query_system: explicitly register reused dep nodes
Register nodes that we've reused from the previous session explicitly
with `OnDiskCache`. Previously, we relied on this happening as a side
effect of accessing the nodes in the `PreviousDepGraph`. For the sake of
performance and avoiding unintended side effects, register explictily.
Rename `overlapping_patterns` lint
As discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65477. I also tweaked a few things along the way.
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` modify labels: +A-exhaustiveness-checking
Reserve necessary space for params in generics_of
Always reserve space for the exact number of generic parameters we need in generics_of. As far as I can see, the default is 0/4 elements based on has_self, and the vector grows on after that.
Acknowledge that `[CONST; N]` is stable
When `const_in_array_repeat_expressions` (RFC 2203) got unstably implemented as part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61749, accidentally, the special case of repeating a *constant* got stabilized immediately. That is why the following code works on stable:
```rust
const EMPTY: Vec<i32> = Vec::new();
pub const fn bar() -> [Vec<i32>; 2] {
[EMPTY; 2]
}
fn main() {
let x = bar();
}
```
In contrast, if we had written `[expr; 2]` for some expression that is not *literally* a constant but could be evaluated at compile-time (e.g. `(EMPTY,).0`), this would have failed.
We could take back this stabilization as it was clearly accidental. However, I propose we instead just officially accept this and stabilize a small subset of RFC 2203, while leaving the more complex case of general expressions that could be evaluated at compile-time unstable. Making that case work well is pretty much blocked on inline `const` expressions (to avoid relying too much on [implicit promotion](https://github.com/rust-lang/const-eval/blob/master/promotion.md)), so it could take a bit until it comes to full fruition. `[CONST; N]` is an uncontroversial subset of this feature that has no semantic ambiguities, does not rely on promotion, and basically provides the full expressive power of RFC 2203 but without the convenience (people have to define constants to repeat them, possibly using associated consts if generics are involved).
Well, I said "no semantic ambiguities", that is only almost true... the one point I am not sure about is `[CONST; 0]`. There are two possible behaviors here: either this is equivalent to `let x = CONST; [x; 0]`, or it is a NOP (if we argue that the constant is never actually instantiated). The difference between the two is that if `CONST` has a destructor, it should run in the former case (but currently doesn't, due to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74836); but should not run if it is considered a NOP. For regular `[x; 0]` there seems to be consensus on running drop (there isn't really an alternative); any opinions for the `CONST` special case? Should this instantiate the const only to immediately run its destructors? That seems somewhat silly to me. After all, the `let`-expansion does *not* work in general, for `N > 1`.
Cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/wg-const-eval`
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49147
Fix pretty printing an AST representing `&(mut ident)`
The PR fixes a misguiding help diagnostic in the parser that I reported in #80186. I discovered that the parsers recovery and reporting logic was correct but the pretty printer produced wrong code for the example. (Details in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80186#issuecomment-748498676)
Example:
```rust
#![allow(unused_variables)]
fn main() {
let mut &x = &0;
}
```
The AST fragment
`PatKind::Ref(PatKind::Ident(BindingMode::ByValue(Mutability::Mut), ..), Mutability::Not)`
was printed to be `&mut ident`. But this wouldn't round trip through parsing again, because then it would be:
`PatKind::Ref(PatKind::Ident(BindingMode::ByValue(Mutability::Not), ..), Mutability::Mut)`
Now the pretty-printer prints `&(mut ident)`. Reparsing that code results in the AST fragment
`PatKind::Ref(PatKind::Paren(PatKind::Ident(BindingMode::ByValue(Mutability::Mut), ..)), Mutability::Not)`
which I think should behave like the original pattern.
Old diagnostic:
```
error: `mut` must be attached to each individual binding
--> src/main.rs:3:9
|
3 | let mut &x = &0;
| ^^^^^^ help: add `mut` to each binding: `&mut x`
|
= note: `mut` may be followed by `variable` and `variable @ pattern`
```
New diagnostic:
```
error: `mut` must be attached to each individual binding
--> src/main.rs:3:9
|
3 | let mut &x = &0;
| ^^^^^^ help: add `mut` to each binding: `&(mut x)`
|
= note: `mut` may be followed by `variable` and `variable @ pattern`
```
Fixes#80186
Minor cleanups in LateResolver
- Avoid calculating hash twice
- Avoid creating a closure in every iteration of a loop
- Reserve space for path in advance
- Some readability changes
Handle desugaring in impl trait bound suggestion
Fixes#79843.
When an associated type of a generic function parameter needs extra bounds, the diagnostics may suggest replacing an `impl Trait` with a named type parameter so that it can be referenced in the where clause. On stable and nightly, the suggestion can be malformed, for instance transforming:
```rust
async fn run(_: &(), foo: impl Foo) -> std::io::Result<()>
```
Into:
```rust
async fn run(_: &, F: Foo(), foo: F) -> std::io::Result<()> where <F as Foo>::Bar: Send
^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Where we want something like:
```rust
async fn run<F: Foo>(_: &(), foo: F) -> std::io::Result<()> where <F as Foo>::Bar: Send
^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
The problem is that the elided lifetime of `&()` is added as a generic parameter when desugaring the async fn; the suggestion code sees this as an existing generic parameter and tries to use its span as an anchor to inject `F` into the parameter list. There doesn't seem to be an entirely principled way to check which generic parameters in the HIR were explicitly named in the source, so this commit changes the heuristics when generating the suggestion to only consider type parameters whose spans are contained within the span of the `Generics` when determining how to insert an additional type parameter into the declaration. (And to be safe it also excludes parameters whose spans are marked as originating from desugaring, although that doesn't seem to handle this elided lifetime.)
Edit rustc_middle docs
Re-word doc comment for rustc_middle::hir::place::Projection.
Also adds:
- Missing end stop punctuation, and
- Documentation links to `rustc_middle::mir::Place`.
Turn quadratic time on number of impl blocks into linear time
Previously, if you had a lot of inherent impl blocks on a type like:
```Rust
struct Foo;
impl Foo { fn foo_1() {} }
// ...
impl Foo { fn foo_100_000() {} }
```
The compiler would be very slow at processing it, because
an internal algorithm would run in O(n^2), where n is the number
of impl blocks. Now, we add a new algorithm that allocates but
is faster asymptotically.
Comparing rustc nightly with a local build of rustc as of this PR (results in seconds):
| N | real time before | real time after |
| - | - | - |
| 4_000 | 0.57 | 0.46 |
| 8_000 | 1.31 | 0.84 |
| 16_000 | 3.56 | 1.69 |
| 32_000 | 10.60 | 3.73 |
I've tuned up the numbers to make the effect larger than the startup noise of rustc, but the asymptotic difference should hold for smaller n as well.
Note: current state of the PR omits error messages if there are other errors present already. For now, I'm mainly interested in a perf run to study whether this issue is present at all. Please queue one for this PR. Thanks!
Re-word doc comment for rustc_middle::hir::place::Projection.
Also adds:
- Missing end stop punctuation, and
- Documentation links to `rustc_middle::mir::Place`.
`PatKind::Ref(PatKind::Ident(BindingMode::ByValue(Mutability::Mut), ..), ..)`
is an AST representing `&(mut ident)`. It was errorneously printed as
`&mut ident` which reparsed into a syntactically different AST.
This affected help diagnostics in the parser.
Make BoundRegion have a kind of BoungRegionKind
Split from #76814
Also includes making `replace_escaping_bound_vars` only return `T`
Going to r? `@lcnr`
Feel free to reassign
or_patterns: implement :pat edition-specific behavior
cc #54883 `@joshtriplett`
This PR implements the edition-specific behavior of `:pat` wrt or-patterns, as determined by the crater runs and T-lang consensus in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54883#issuecomment-745509090.
I believe this can unblock stabilization of or_patterns.
r? `@petrochenkov`
const_evaluatable_checked: fix occurs check
fixes#79615
this is kind of a hack because we use `TypeRelation` for both the `Generalizer` and the `ConstInferUnifier` but i am not sure if there is a useful way to disentangle this without unnecessarily duplicating some code.
The error in the added test is kind of unavoidable until we erase the unused substs of `ConstKind::Unevaluated`. We talked a bit about this in the cg lazy norm meeting (https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/260443-project-const-generics/topic/lazy_normalization_consts)
Improve and fix diagnostics of exhaustiveness checking
Primarily, this fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/56379. This also fixes incorrect interactions between or-patterns and slice patterns that I discovered while working on #56379. Those two examples show the incorrect diagnostics:
```rust
match &[][..] {
[true] => {}
[true // detected as unreachable but that's not true
| false, ..] => {}
_ => {}
}
match (true, None) {
(true, Some(_)) => {}
(false, Some(true)) => {}
(true | false, None | Some(true // should be detected as unreachable
| false)) => {}
}
```
I did not measure any perf impact. However, I suspect that [`616ba9f`](616ba9f9f7) should have a negative impact on large or-patterns. I'll see what the perf run says; I have optimization ideas up my sleeve if needed.
EDIT: I initially had a noticeable perf impact that I thought unavoidable. I then proceeded to avoid it x)
r? `@varkor`
`@rustbot` label +A-exhaustiveness-checking
