Subtree sync 2023-01-24 #5670
Merged
Subtree sync 2023-01-24 #5670
Conversation
This file contains 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
Just moving code around so that triagebot can ping relevant parties when translation logic is modified. Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
- Rename `ast::Lit::token` as `ast::Lit::token_lit`, because its type is
`token::Lit`, which is not a token. (This has been confusing me for a
long time.)
reasonable because we have an `ast::token::Lit` inside an `ast::Lit`.
- Rename `LitKind::{from,to}_lit_token` as
`LitKind::{from,to}_token_lit`, to match the above change and
`token::Lit`.
Clean up `LitKind` r? ``@petrochenkov``
triagebot: add translation-related mention groups - Move some code around so that triagebot can ping relevant parties when translation logic is modified. - Add mention groups to triagebot for translation-related files/folders. - Auto-label pull requests with changes to translation-related files/folders with `A-translation`. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
In some places we use `Vec<Attribute>` and some places we use `ThinVec<Attribute>` (a.k.a. `AttrVec`). This results in various points where we have to convert between `Vec` and `ThinVec`. This commit changes the places that use `Vec<Attribute>` to use `AttrVec`. A lot of this is mechanical and boring, but there are some interesting parts: - It adds a few new methods to `ThinVec`. - It implements `MapInPlace` for `ThinVec`, and introduces a macro to avoid the repetition of this trait for `Vec`, `SmallVec`, and `ThinVec`. Overall, it makes the code a little nicer, and has little effect on performance. But it is a precursor to removing `rustc_data_structures::thin_vec::ThinVec` and replacing it with `thin_vec::ThinVec`, which is implemented more efficiently.
# Stabilization proposal The feature was implemented in rust-lang/rust#50045 by est31 and has been in nightly since 2018-05-16 (over 4 years now). There are [no open issues][issue-label] other than the tracking issue. There is a strong consensus that `break` is the right keyword and we should not use `return`. There have been several concerns raised about this feature on the tracking issue (other than the one about tests, which has been fixed, and an interaction with try blocks, which has been fixed). 1. nrc's original comment about cost-benefit analysis: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) 2. joshtriplett's comments about seeing use cases: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) 3. withoutboats's comments that Rust does not need more control flow constructs: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) Many different examples of code that's simpler using this feature have been provided: - A lexer by rpjohnst which must repeat code without label-break-value: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - A snippet by SergioBenitez which avoids using a new function and adding several new return points to a function: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment). This particular case would also work if `try` blocks were stabilized (at the cost of making the code harder to optimize). - Several examples by JohnBSmith: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - Several examples by Centril: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - An example by petrochenkov where this is used in the compiler itself to avoid duplicating error checking code: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - Amanieu recently provided another example related to complex conditions, where try blocks would not have helped: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) Additionally, petrochenkov notes that this is strictly more powerful than labelled loops due to macros which accidentally exit a loop instead of being consumed by the macro matchers: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) nrc later resolved their concern, mostly because of the aforementioned macro problems. joshtriplett suggested that macros could be able to generate IR directly (rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment)) but there are no open RFCs, and the design space seems rather speculative. joshtriplett later resolved his concerns, due to a symmetry between this feature and existing labelled break: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) withoutboats has regrettably left the language team. joshtriplett later posted that the lang team would consider starting an FCP given a stabilization report: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) [issue-label]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AF-label_break_value+ ## Report + Feature gate: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/src/test/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-label_break_value.rs + Diagnostics: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6b2d3d5f3cd1e553d87b5496632132565b6779d3/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs#L2629 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L749 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L1001 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/111df9e6eda1d752233482c1309d00d20a4bbf98/compiler/rustc_passes/src/loops.rs#L254 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L2079 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L1569 + Tests: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_continue.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_unlabeled_break.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_illegal_uses.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/lint/unused_labels.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/run-pass/for-loop-while/label_break_value.rs ## Interactions with other features Labels follow the hygiene of local variables. label-break-value is permitted within `try` blocks: ```rust let _: Result<(), ()> = try { 'foo: { Err(())?; break 'foo; } }; ``` label-break-value is disallowed within closures, generators, and async blocks: ```rust 'a: { || break 'a //~^ ERROR use of unreachable label `'a` //~| ERROR `break` inside of a closure } ``` label-break-value is disallowed on [_BlockExpression_]; it can only occur as a [_LoopExpression_]: ```rust fn labeled_match() { match false 'b: { //~ ERROR block label not supported here _ => {} } } macro_rules! m { ($b:block) => { 'lab: $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here unsafe $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here |x: u8| -> () $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here } } fn foo() { m!({}); } ``` [_BlockExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/block-expr.html [_LoopExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/loop-expr.html
…henkov Stabilize `#![feature(label_break_value)]` See the stabilization report in rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment).
Stabilize generic associated types Closes #44265 r? `@nikomatsakis` # ⚡ Status of the discussion ⚡ * [x] There have been several serious concerns raised, [summarized here](rust-lang/rust#96709 (comment)). * [x] There has also been a [deep-dive comment](rust-lang/rust#96709 (comment)) explaining some of the "patterns of code" that are enabled by GATs, based on use-cases posted to this thread or on the tracking issue. * [x] We have modeled some aspects of GATs in [a-mir-formality](https://github.com/nikomatsakis/a-mir-formality) to give better confidence in how they will be resolved in the future. [You can read a write-up here](https://github.com/rust-lang/types-team/blob/master/minutes/2022-07-08-implied-bounds-and-wf-checking.md). * [x] The major points of the discussion have been [summarized on the GAT initiative repository](https://rust-lang.github.io/generic-associated-types-initiative/mvp.html). * [x] [FCP has been proposed](rust-lang/rust#96709 (comment)) and we are awaiting final decisions and discussion amidst the relevant team members. # Stabilization proposal This PR proposes the stabilization of `#![feature(generic_associated_types)]`. While there a number of future additions to be made and bugs to be fixed (both discussed below), properly doing these will require significant language design and will ultimately likely be backwards-compatible. Given the overwhelming desire to have some form of generic associated types (GATs) available on stable and the stability of the "simple" uses, stabilizing the current subset of GAT features is almost certainly the correct next step. Tracking issue: #44265 Initiative: https://rust-lang.github.io/generic-associated-types-initiative/ RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1598-generic_associated_types.md Version: 1.65 (2022-08-22 => beta, 2022-11-03 => stable). ## Motivation There are a myriad of potential use cases for GATs. Stabilization unblocks probable future language features (e.g. async functions in traits), potential future standard library features (e.g. a `LendingIterator` or some form of `Iterator` with a lifetime generic), and a plethora of user use cases (some of which can be seen just by scrolling through the tracking issue and looking at all the issues linking to it). There are a myriad of potential use cases for GATs. First, there are many users that have chosen to not use GATs primarily because they are not stable (some of which can be seen just by scrolling through the tracking issue and looking at all the issues linking to it). Second, while language feature desugaring isn't *blocked* on stabilization, it gives more confidence on using the feature. Likewise, library features like `LendingIterator` are not necessarily blocked on stabilization to be implemented unstably; however few, if any, public-facing APIs actually use unstable features. This feature has a long history of design, discussion, and developement - the RFC was first introduced roughly 6 years ago. While there are still a number of features left to implement and bugs left to fix, it's clear that it's unlikely those will have backwards-incompatibility concerns. Additionally, the bugs that do exist do not strongly impede the most-common use cases. ## What is stabilized The primary language feature stabilized here is the ability to have generics on associated types, as so. Additionally, where clauses on associated types will now be accepted, regardless if the associated type is generic or not. ```rust trait ATraitWithGATs { type Assoc<'a, T> where T: 'a; } trait ATraitWithoutGATs<'a, T> { type Assoc where T: 'a; } ``` When adding an impl for a trait with generic associated types, the generics for the associated type are copied as well. Note that where clauses are allowed both after the specified type and before the equals sign; however, the latter is a warn-by-default deprecation. ```rust struct X; struct Y; impl ATraitWithGATs for X { type Assoc<'a, T> = &'a T where T: 'a; } impl ATraitWithGATs for Y { type Assoc<'a, T> where T: 'a = &'a T; } ``` To use a GAT in a function, generics are specified on the associated type, as if it was a struct or enum. GATs can also be specified in trait bounds: ```rust fn accepts_gat<'a, T>(t: &'a T) -> T::Assoc<'a, T> where for<'x> T: ATraitWithGATs<Assoc<'a, T> = &'a T> { ... } ``` GATs can also appear in trait methods. However, depending on how they are used, they may confer where clauses on the associated type definition. More information can be found [here](rust-lang/rust#87479). Briefly, where clauses are required when those bounds can be proven in the methods that *construct* the GAT or other associated types that use the GAT in the trait. This allows impls to have maximum flexibility in the types defined for the associated type. To take a relatively simple example: ```rust trait Iterable { type Item<'a>; type Iterator<'a>: Iterator<Item = Self::Item<'a>>; fn iter<'x>(&'x self) -> Self::Iterator<'x>; //^ We know that `Self: 'a` for `Iterator<'a>`, so we require that bound on `Iterator` // `Iterator` uses `Self::Item`, so we also require a `Self: 'a` on `Item` too } ``` A couple well-explained examples are available in a previous [blog post](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2021/08/03/GATs-stabilization-push.html). ## What isn't stabilized/implemented ### Universal type/const quantification Currently, you can write a bound like `X: for<'a> Trait<Assoc<'a> = &'a ()>`. However, you cannot currently write `for<T> X: Trait<Assoc<T> = T>` or `for<const N> X: Trait<Assoc<N> = [usize; N]>`. Here is an example where this is needed: ```rust trait Foo {} trait Trait { type Assoc<F: Foo>; } trait Trait2: Sized { fn foo<F: Foo, T: Trait<Assoc<F> = F>>(_t: T); } ``` In the above example, the *caller* must specify `F`, which is likely not what is desired. ### Object-safe GATs Unlike non-generic associated types, traits with GATs are not currently object-safe. In other words the following are not allowed: ```rust trait Trait { type Assoc<'a>; } fn foo(t: &dyn for<'a> Trait<Assoc<'a> = &'a ()>) {} //^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not allowed let ty: Box<dyn for<'a> Trait<Assoc<'a> = &'a ()>>; //^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not allowed ``` ### Higher-kinded types You cannot write currently (and there are no current plans to implement this): ```rust struct Struct<'a> {} fn foo(s: for<'a> Struct<'a>) {} ``` ## Tests There are many tests covering GATs that can be found in `src/test/ui/generic-associated-types`. Here, I'll list (in alphanumeric order) tests highlight some important behavior or contain important patterns. - `./parse/*`: Parsing of GATs in traits and impls, and the trait path with GATs - `./collections-project-default.rs`: Interaction with associated type defaults - `./collections.rs`: The `Collection` pattern - `./const-generics-gat-in-trait-return-type-*.rs`: Const parameters - `./constraint-assoc-type-suggestion.rs`: Emit correct syntax in suggestion - `./cross-crate-bounds.rs`: Ensure we handles bounds across crates the same - `./elided-in-expr-position.rs`: Disallow lifetime elision in return position - `./gat-in-trait-path-undeclared-lifetime.rs`: Ensure we error on undeclared lifetime in trait path - `./gat-in-trait-path.rs`: Base trait path case - `./gat-trait-path-generic-type-arg.rs`: Don't allow shadowing of parameters - `./gat-trait-path-parenthesised-args.rs`: Don't allow paranthesized args in trait path - `./generic-associated-types-where.rs`: Ensure that we require where clauses from trait to be met on impl - `./impl_bounds.rs`: Check that the bounds on GATs in an impl are checked - `./issue-76826.rs`: `Windows` pattern - `./issue-78113-lifetime-mismatch-dyn-trait-box.rs`: Implicit 'static diagnostics - `./issue-84931.rs`: Ensure that we have a where clause on GAT to ensure trait parameter lives long enough - `./issue-87258_a.rs`: Unconstrained opaque type with TAITs - `./issue-87429-2.rs`: Ensure we can use bound vars in the bounds - `./issue-87429-associated-type-default.rs`: Ensure bounds hold with associated type defaults, for both trait and impl - `./issue-87429-specialization.rs`: Check that bounds hold under specialization - `./issue-88595.rs`: Under the outlives lint, we require a bound for both trait and GAT lifetime when trait lifetime is used in function - `./issue-90014.rs`: Lifetime bounds are checked with TAITs - `./issue-91139.rs`: Under migrate mode, but not NLL, we don't capture implied bounds from HRTB lifetimes used in a function and GATs - `./issue-91762.rs`: We used to too eagerly pick param env candidates when normalizing with GATs. We now require explicit parameters specified. - `./issue-95305.rs`: Disallow lifetime elision in trait paths - `./iterable.rs`: `Iterable` pattern - `./method-unsatified-assoc-type-predicate.rs`: Print predicates with GATs correctly in method resolve error - `./missing_lifetime_const.rs`: Ensure we must specify lifetime args (not elidable) - `./missing-where-clause-on-trait.rs`: Ensure we don't allow stricter bounds on impl than trait - `./parameter_number_and_kind_impl.rs`: Ensure paramters on GAT in impl match GAT in trait - `./pointer_family.rs`: `PointerFamily` pattern - `./projection-bound-cycle.rs`: Don't allow invalid cycles to prove bounds - `./self-outlives-lint.rs`: Ensures that an e.g. `Self: 'a` is written on the traits GAT if that bound can be implied from the GAT usage in the trait - `./shadowing.rs`: Don't allow lifetime shadowing in params - `./streaming_iterator.rs`: `StreamingIterator`(`LendingIterator`) pattern - `./trait-objects.rs`: Disallow trait objects for traits with GATs - `./variance_constraints.rs`: Require that GAT substs be invariant ## Remaining bugs and open issues A full list of remaining open issues can be found at: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/labels/F-generic_associated_types There are some `known-bug` tests in-tree at `src/test/ui/generic-associated-types/bugs`. Here I'll categorize most of those that GAT bugs (or involve a pattern found more with GATs), but not those that include GATs but not a GAT issue in and of itself. (I also won't include issues directly for things listed elsewhere here.) Using the concrete type of a GAT instead of the projection type can give errors, since lifetimes are chosen to be early-bound vs late-bound. - #85533 - #87803 In certain cases, we can run into cycle or overflow errors. This is more generally a problem with associated types. - #87755 - #87758 Bounds on an associatd type need to be proven by an impl, but where clauses need to be proven by the usage. This can lead to confusion when users write one when they mean the other. - #87831 - #90573 We sometimes can't normalize closure signatures fully. Really an asociated types issue, but might happen a bit more frequently with GATs, since more obvious place for HRTB lifetimes. - #88382 When calling a function, we assign types to parameters "too late", after we already try (and fail) to normalize projections. Another associated types issue that might pop up more with GATs. - #88460 - #96230 We don't fully have implied bounds for lifetimes appearing in GAT trait paths, which can lead to unconstrained type errors. - #88526 Suggestion for adding lifetime bounds can suggest unhelpful fixes (`T: 'a` instead of `Self: 'a`), but the next compiler error after making the suggested change is helpful. - #90816 - #92096 - #95268 We can end up requiring that `for<'a> I: 'a` when we really want `for<'a where I: 'a> I: 'a`. This can leave unhelpful errors than effectively can't be satisfied unless `I: 'static`. Requires bigger changes and not only GATs. - #91693 Unlike with non-generic associated types, we don't eagerly normalize with param env candidates. This is intended behavior (for now), to avoid accidentaly stabilizing picking arbitrary impls. - #91762 Some Iterator adapter patterns (namely `filter`) require Polonius or unsafe to work. - #92985 ## Potential Future work ### Universal type/const quantification No work has been done to implement this. There are also some questions around implied bounds. ### Object-safe GATs The intention is to make traits with GATs object-safe. There are some design work to be done around well-formedness rules and general implementation. ### GATified std lib types It would be helpful to either introduce new std lib traits (like `LendingIterator`) or to modify existing ones (adding a `'a` generic to `Iterator::Item`). There also a number of other candidates, like `Index`/`IndexMut` and `Fn`/`FnMut`/`FnOnce`. ### Reduce the need for `for<'a>` Seen [here](rust-lang/rfcs#1598 (comment)). One possible syntax: ```rust trait Iterable { type Iter<'a>: Iterator<Item = Self::Item<'a>>; } fn foo<T>() where T: Iterable, T::Item<let 'a>: Display { } //note the `let`! ``` ### Better implied bounds on higher-ranked things Currently if we have a `type Item<'a> where self: 'a`, and a `for<'a> T: Iterator<Item<'a> = &'a ()`, this requires `for<'a> Self: 'a`. Really, we want `for<'a where T: 'a> ...` There was some mentions of this all the back in the RFC thread [here](rust-lang/rfcs#1598 (comment)). ## Alternatives ### Make generics on associated type in bounds a binder Imagine the bound `for<'a> T: Trait<Item<'a>= &'a ()>`. It might be that `for<'a>` is "too large" and it should instead be `T: Trait<for<'a> Item<'a>= &'a ()>`. Brought up in RFC thread [here](rust-lang/rfcs#1598 (comment)) and in a few places since. Another related question: Is `for<'a>` the right syntax? Maybe `where<'a>`? Also originally found in RFC thread [here](rust-lang/rfcs#1598 (comment)). ### Stabilize lifetime GATs first This has been brought up a few times. The idea is to only allow GATs with lifetime parameters to in initial stabilization. This was probably most useful prior to actual implementation. At this point, lifetimes, types, and consts are all implemented and work. It feels like an arbitrary split without strong reason. ## History * On 2016-04-30, [RFC opened](rust-lang/rfcs#1598) * On 2017-09-02, RFC merged and [tracking issue opened](rust-lang/rust#44265) * On 2017-10-23, [Move Generics from MethodSig to TraitItem and ImplItem](rust-lang/rust#44766) * On 2017-12-01, [Generic Associated Types Parsing & Name Resolution](rust-lang/rust#45904) * On 2017-12-15, [https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/46706](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/46706) * On 2018-04-23, [Feature gate where clauses on associated types](rust-lang/rust#49368) * On 2018-05-10, [Extend tests for RFC1598 (GAT)](rust-lang/rust#49423) * On 2018-05-24, [Finish implementing GATs (Chalk)](rust-lang/chalk#134) * On 2019-12-21, [Make GATs less ICE-prone](rust-lang/rust#67160) * On 2020-02-13, [fix lifetime shadowing check in GATs](rust-lang/rust#68938) * On 2020-06-20, [Projection bound validation](rust-lang/rust#72788) * On 2020-10-06, [Separate projection bounds and predicates](rust-lang/rust#73905) * On 2021-02-05, [Generic associated types in trait paths](rust-lang/rust#79554) * On 2021-02-06, [Trait objects do not work with generic associated types](rust-lang/rust#81823) * On 2021-04-28, [Make traits with GATs not object safe](rust-lang/rust#84622) * On 2021-05-11, [Improve diagnostics for GATs](rust-lang/rust#82272) * On 2021-07-16, [Make GATs no longer an incomplete feature](rust-lang/rust#84623) * On 2021-07-16, [Replace associated item bound vars with placeholders when projecting](rust-lang/rust#86993) * On 2021-07-26, [GATs: Decide whether to have defaults for `where Self: 'a`](rust-lang/rust#87479) * On 2021-08-25, [Normalize projections under binders](rust-lang/rust#85499) * On 2021-08-03, [The push for GATs stabilization](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2021/08/03/GATs-stabilization-push.html) * On 2021-08-12, [Detect stricter constraints on gats where clauses in impls vs trait](rust-lang/rust#88336) * On 2021-09-20, [Proposal: Change syntax of where clauses on type aliases](rust-lang/rust#89122) * On 2021-11-06, [Implementation of GATs outlives lint](rust-lang/rust#89970) * On 2021-12-29. [Parse and suggest moving where clauses after equals for type aliases](rust-lang/rust#92118) * On 2022-01-15, [Ignore static lifetimes for GATs outlives lint](rust-lang/rust#92865) * On 2022-02-08, [Don't constrain projection predicates with inference vars in GAT substs](rust-lang/rust#92917) * On 2022-02-15, [Rework GAT where clause check](rust-lang/rust#93820) * On 2022-02-19, [Only mark projection as ambiguous if GAT substs are constrained](rust-lang/rust#93892) * On 2022-03-03, [Support GATs in Rustdoc](rust-lang/rust#94009) * On 2022-03-06, [Change location of where clause on GATs](rust-lang/rust#90076) * On 2022-05-04, [A shiny future with GATs blog post](https://jackh726.github.io/rust/2022/05/04/a-shiny-future-with-gats.html) * On 2022-05-04, [Stabilization PR](rust-lang/rust#96709)
Track where diagnostics were created.
This implements the `-Ztrack-diagnostics` flag, which uses `#[track_caller]` to track where diagnostics are created. It is meant as a debugging tool much like `-Ztreat-err-as-bug`.
For example, the following code...
```rust
struct A;
struct B;
fn main(){
let _: A = B;
}
```
...now emits the following error message:
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src\main.rs:5:16
|
5 | let _: A = B;
| - ^ expected struct `A`, found struct `B`
| |
| expected due to this
-Ztrack-diagnostics: created at compiler\rustc_infer\src\infer\error_reporting\mod.rs:2275:31
```
Instead of `ast::Lit`. Literal lowering now happens at two different times. Expression literals are lowered when HIR is crated. Attribute literals are lowered during parsing. This commit changes the language very slightly. Some programs that used to not compile now will compile. This is because some invalid literals that are removed by `cfg` or attribute macros will no longer trigger errors. See this comment for more details: rust-lang/rust#102944 (comment)
…es, and patterns.
`MacArgs` is an enum with three variants: `Empty`, `Delimited`, and `Eq`. It's used in two ways: - For representing attribute macro arguments (e.g. in `AttrItem`), where all three variants are used. - For representing function-like macros (e.g. in `MacCall` and `MacroDef`), where only the `Delimited` variant is used. In other words, `MacArgs` is used in two quite different places due to them having partial overlap. I find this makes the code hard to read. It also leads to various unreachable code paths, and allows invalid values (such as accidentally using `MacArgs::Empty` in a `MacCall`). This commit splits `MacArgs` in two: - `DelimArgs` is a new struct just for the "delimited arguments" case. It is now used in `MacCall` and `MacroDef`. - `AttrArgs` is a renaming of the old `MacArgs` enum for the attribute macro case. Its `Delimited` variant now contains a `DelimArgs`. Various other related things are renamed as well. These changes make the code clearer, avoids several unreachable paths, and disallows the invalid values.
We already use a mix of `Literal` and `Lit`. The latter is better because it is shorter without causing any ambiguity.
Lower them into a single item with multiple resolutions instead. This also allows to remove additional `NodId`s and `DefId`s related to those additional items.
`token::Lit` contains a `kind` field that indicates what kind of literal it is. `ast::MetaItemLit` currently wraps a `token::Lit` but also has its own `kind` field. This means that `ast::MetaItemLit` encodes the literal kind in two different ways. This commit changes `ast::MetaItemLit` so it no longer wraps `token::Lit`. It now contains the `symbol` and `suffix` fields from `token::Lit`, but not the `kind` field, eliminating the redundancy.
Keep track of the start of the argument block of a closure This removes a call to `tcx.sess.source_map()` from [compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/error_reporting/mod.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...SarthakSingh31:issue-97417-1?expand=1#diff-8406bbc0d0b43d84c91b1933305df896ecdba0d1f9269e6744f13d87a2ab268a) as required by #97417. VsCode automatically applied `rustfmt` to the files I edited under `src/tools`. I can undo that if its a problem. r? `@cjgillot`
Remove `token::Lit` from `ast::MetaItemLit`. Currently `ast::MetaItemLit` represents the literal kind twice. This PR removes that redundancy. Best reviewed one commit at a time. r? `@petrochenkov`
The name makes a lot more sense, and `ty::TyKind` calls it `Ref` already as well.
Fix #58497.
|
Thanks for keeping me posted about I imagine we should document that alongside the info from #5665 (comment) |
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.
cc @ytmimi
Don't worry about review (we've looked at these changes upstream already), but just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that going forward we'll also require the
llvm-toolscomponent for building.