Rustup #13746
Merged
Rustup #13746
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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`.
take 2 open up coroutines tweak the wordings the lint works up until 2021 We were missing one case, for ADTs, which was causing `Result` to yield incorrect results. only include field spans with significant types deduplicate and eliminate field spans switch to emit spans to impl Drops Co-authored-by: Niko Matsakis <[email protected]> collect drops instead of taking liveness diff apply some suggestions and add explantory notes small fix on the cache let the query recurse through coroutine new suggestion format with extracted variable name fine-tune the drop span and messages bugfix on runtime borrows tweak message wording filter out ecosystem types earlier apply suggestions clippy check lint level at session level further restrict applicability of the lint translate bid into nop for stable mir detect cycle in type structure
…r-errors remove is_trivially_const_drop I'm not sure this still brings any perf benefits, so let's benchmark this. r? `@compiler-errors`
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.
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
r? @ghost
changelog: none