astconv: extract closures into a separate trait
Am currently looking into completely removing `check_generic_arg_count` and `create_substs_for_generic_args` was somewhat difficult to understand for me so I moved these closures into a trait.
This should not have changed the behavior of any of these methods
Make `_` an expression, to discard values in destructuring assignments
This is the third and final step towards implementing destructuring assignment (RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2909, tracking issue: #71126). This PR is the third and final part of #71156, which was split up to allow for easier review.
With this PR, an underscore `_` is parsed as an expression but is allowed *only* on the left-hand side of a destructuring assignment. There it simply discards a value, similarly to the wildcard `_` in patterns. For instance,
```rust
(a, _) = (1, 2)
```
will simply assign 1 to `a` and discard the 2. Note that for consistency,
```
_ = foo
```
is also allowed and equivalent to just `foo`.
Thanks to ````@varkor```` who helped with the implementation, particularly around pre-expansion gating.
r? ````@petrochenkov````
cleanup: Remove `ParseSess::injected_crate_name`
Its only remaining use is in pretty-printing where the necessary information can be easily re-computed.
Allow making `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP` conditional on the crate name
Motivation: This came up in the [Zulip stream](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/233931-t-compiler.2Fmajor-changes/topic/Require.20users.20to.20confirm.20they.20know.20RUSTC_.E2.80.A6.20compiler-team.23350/near/208403962) for https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/350.
See also https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/6608#issuecomment-458546258; this implements https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/6627.
The goal is for this to eventually allow prohibiting setting `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP` in build.rs (https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/7088).
## User-facing changes
- `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1` still works; there is no current plan to remove this.
- Things like `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=0` no longer activate nightly features. In practice this shouldn't be a big deal, since `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP` is the opposite of stable and everyone uses `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1` anyway.
- `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=x` will enable nightly features only for crate `x`.
- `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=x,y` will enable nightly features only for crates `x` and `y`.
## Implementation changes
The main change is that `UnstableOptions::from_environment` now requires
an (optional) crate name. If the crate name is unknown (`None`), then the new feature is not available and you still have to use `RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1`. In practice this means the feature is only available for `--crate-name`, not for `#![crate_name]`; I'm interested in supporting the second but I'm not sure how.
Other major changes:
- Added `Session::is_nightly_build()`, which uses the `crate_name` of
the session
- Added `nightly_options::match_is_nightly_build`, a convenience method
for looking up `--crate-name` from CLI arguments.
`Session::is_nightly_build()`should be preferred where possible, since
it will take into account `#![crate_name]` (I think).
- Added `unstable_features` to `rustdoc::RenderOptions`
I'm not sure whether this counts as T-compiler or T-lang; _technically_ RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP is an implementation detail, but it's been used so much it seems like this counts as a language change too.
r? `@joshtriplett`
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` `@hsivonen`
Clean up outdated `use_once_payload` pretty printer comment
While reading some parts of the pretty printer code, I noticed this old comment
which seemed out of place. The `use_once_payload` this outdated comment mentions
was removed in 2017 in 40f03a1e0d, so this
completes the work by removing the comment.
Fix rustc_ast_pretty print_qpath resulting in invalid macro input
related https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/76874 (third case)
### Issue:
The input for a procedural macro is incorrect, for the rust code:
```rust
mod m {
pub trait Tr {
type Ts: super::Tu;
}
}
trait Tu {
fn dummy() { }
}
#[may_proc_macro]
fn foo() {
<T as m::Tr>::Ts::dummy();
}
```
the macro will get the input:
```rust
fn foo() {
<T as m::Tr>::dummy();
}
```
Thus `Ts` has disappeared.
### Fix:
This is due to invalid pretty print of qpath. This PR fix it.
Normalize function type during validation
During inlining, the callee body is normalized and has types revealed,
but some of locals corresponding to the arguments might come from the
caller body which is not. As a result the caller body does not pass
validation without additional normalization.
Closes#78442.
Do not call `unwrap` with `signatures` option enabled
Fixes#75229
Didn't add a test since I couldn't set `RUST_SAVE_ANALYSIS_CONFIG` even with `rustc-env`.
Lower intrinsics calls: forget, size_of, unreachable, wrapping_*
This allows constant propagation to evaluate `size_of` and `wrapping_*`,
and unreachable propagation to propagate a call to `unreachable`.
The lowering is performed as a MIR optimization, rather than during MIR
building to preserve the special status of intrinsics with respect to
unsafety checks and promotion.
Currently enabled by default to determine the performance impact (no
significant impact expected). In practice only useful when combined with
inlining since intrinsics are rarely used directly (with exception of
`unreachable` and `discriminant_value` used by built-in derive macros).
Closes#32716.
add error_occured field to ConstQualifs,
fix#76064
I wasn't sure what `in_return_place` actually did and not sure why it returns `ConstQualifs` while it's sibling functions return `bool`. So I tried to make as minimal changes to the structure as possible. Please point out whether I have to refactor it or not.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@RalfJung`
rustc_target: Mark UEFI targets as `is_like_windows`/`is_like_msvc`
And document what `is_like_windows` and `is_like_msvc` actually mean in more detail.
Addresses FIXMEs left from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/71030.
r? `@nagisa`
rustc_parse: Remove optimization for 0-length streams in `collect_tokens`
The optimization conflates empty token streams with unknown token stream, which is at least suspicious, and doesn't affect performance because 0-length token streams are very rare.
r? `@Aaron1011`
This allows constant propagation to evaluate `size_of` and `wrapping_*`,
and unreachable propagation to propagate a call to `unreachable`.
The lowering is performed as a MIR optimization, rather than during MIR
building to preserve the special status of intrinsics with respect to
unsafety checks and promotion.
Add type to `ConstKind::Placeholder`
I simply threaded `<'tcx>` through everything that required it. I'm not sure whether this is the correct thing to do, but it seems to work.
r? `@nikomatsakis`
While reading some parts of the pretty printer code, I noticed this old comment
which seemed out of place. The `use_once_payload` this outdated comment mentions
was removed in 2017 in 40f03a1e0d, so this
completes the work by removing the comment.
During inlining, the callee body is normalized and has types revealed,
but some of locals corresponding to the arguments might come from the
caller body which is not. As a result the caller body does not pass
validation without additional normalization.
The optimization conflates empty token streams with unknown token stream, which is at least suspicious, and doesn't affect performance because 0-length token streams are very rare.
The inliner looks if a sanitizer is enabled before considering
`no_sanitize` attribute as possible source of incompatibility.
The MIR inlining could happen in a crate with sanitizer disabled, but
code generation in a crate with sanitizer enabled, thus the attribute
would be incorrectly ignored.
To avoid the issue never inline functions with different `no_sanitize`
attributes.
Add asm register information for SPIR-V
As discussed in [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/182449-t-compiler.2Fhelp/topic/Defining.20asm!.20for.20new.20architecture), we at [rust-gpu](https://github.com/EmbarkStudios/rust-gpu) would like to support `asm!` for our SPIR-V backend. However, we cannot do so purely without frontend support: [this match](d4ea0b3e46/compiler/rustc_target/src/asm/mod.rs (L185)) fails and so `asm!` is not supported ([error reported here](d4ea0b3e46/compiler/rustc_ast_lowering/src/expr.rs (L1095))). To resolve this, we need to stub out register information for SPIR-V to support getting the `asm!` content all the way to [`AsmBuilderMethods::codegen_inline_asm`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_codegen_ssa/traits/trait.AsmBuilderMethods.html#tymethod.codegen_inline_asm), at which point the rust-gpu backend can do all the parsing and codegen that is needed.
This is a pretty weird PR - adding support for a backend that isn't in-tree feels pretty gross to me, but I don't see an easy way around this. ``@Amanieu`` said I should submit it anyway, so, here we are! Let me know if this needs to go through a more formal process (MCP?) and what I should do to help this along.
I based this off the [wasm asm PR](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78684), which unfortunately this PR conflicts with that one quite a bit, sorry for any merge conflict pain :(
---
Some open questions:
- What do we call the register class? Some context, SPIR-V is an SSA-based IR, there are "instructions" that create IDs (referred to as `<id>` in the spec), which can be referenced by other instructions. So, `reg` isn't exactly accurate, they're SSA IDs, not re-assignable registers.
- What happens when a SPIR-V register gets to the LLVM backend? Right now it's a `bug!`, but should that be a `sess.fatal()`? I'm not sure if it's even possible to reach that point, maybe there's a check that prevents the `spirv` target from even reaching that codepath.
Implement destructuring assignment for structs and slices
This is the second step towards implementing destructuring assignment (RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2909, tracking issue: #71126). This PR is the second part of #71156, which was split up to allow for easier review.
Note that the first PR (#78748) is not merged yet, so it is included as the first commit in this one. I thought this would allow the review to start earlier because I have some time this weekend to respond to reviews. If ``@petrochenkov`` prefers to wait until the first PR is merged, I totally understand, of course.
This PR implements destructuring assignment for (tuple) structs and slices. In order to do this, the following *parser change* was necessary: struct expressions are not required to have a base expression, i.e. `Struct { a: 1, .. }` becomes legal (in order to act like a struct pattern).
Unfortunately, this PR slightly regresses the diagnostics implemented in #77283. However, it is only a missing help message in `src/test/ui/issues/issue-77218.rs`. Other instances of this diagnostic are not affected. Since I don't exactly understand how this help message works and how to fix it yet, I was hoping it's OK to regress this temporarily and fix it in a follow-up PR.
Thanks to ``@varkor`` who helped with the implementation, particularly around the struct rest changes.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
