Stop using `ty::GenericPredicates` for non-predicates_of queries
`GenericPredicates` is a struct of several parts: A list of of an item's own predicates, and a parent def id (and some effects related stuff, but ignore that since it's kinda irrelevant). When instantiating these generic predicates, it calls `predicates_of` on the parent and instantiates its predicates, and appends the item's own instantiated predicates too:
acb4e8b625/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/generics.rs (L407-L413)
Notice how this should result in a recursive set of calls to `predicates_of`... However, `GenericPredicates` is *also* misused by a bunch of *other* queries as a convenient way of passing around a list of predicates. For these queries, we don't ever set the parent def id of the `GenericPredicates`, but if we did, then this would be very easy to mistakenly call `predicates_of` instead of some other intended parent query.
Given that footgun, and the fact that we don't ever even *use* the parent def id in the `GenericPredicates` returned from queries like `explicit_super_predicates_of`, It really has no benefit over just returning `&'tcx [(Clause<'tcx>, Span)]`.
This PR additionally opts to wrap the results of `EarlyBinder`, as we've tended to use that in the return type of these kinds of queries to properly convey that the user has params to deal with, and it also gives a convenient way of iterating over a slice of things after instantiating.
Remove `Option<!>` return types.
Several compiler functions have `Option<!>` for their return type. That's odd. The only valid return value is `None`, so why is this type used?
Because it lets you write certain patterns slightly more concisely. E.g. if you have these common patterns:
```
let Some(a) = f() else { return };
let Ok(b) = g() else { return };
```
you can shorten them to these:
```
let a = f()?;
let b = g().ok()?;
```
Huh.
An `Option` return type typically designates success/failure. How should I interpret the type signature of a function that always returns (i.e. doesn't panic), does useful work (modifying `&mut` arguments), and yet only ever fails? This idiom subverts the type system for a cute syntactic trick.
Furthermore, returning `Option<!>` from a function F makes things syntactically more convenient within F, but makes things worse at F's callsites. The callsites can themselves use `?` with F but should not, because they will get an unconditional early return, which is almost certainly not desirable. Instead the return value should be ignored. (Note that some of callsites of `process_operand`, `process_immedate`, `process_assign` actually do use `?`, though the early return doesn't matter in these cases because nothing of significance comes after those calls. Ugh.)
When I first saw this pattern I had no idea how to interpret it, and it took me several minutes of close reading to understand everything I've written above. I even started a Zulip thread about it to make sure I understood it properly. "Save a few characters by introducing types so weird that compiler devs have to discuss it on Zulip" feels like a bad trade-off to me. This commit replaces all the `Option<!>` return values and uses `else`/`return` (or something similar) to replace the relevant `?` uses. The result is slightly more verbose but much easier to understand.
r? ``````@cjgillot``````
Simplify some extern providers
Simplifies some extern crate providers:
1. Generalize the `ProcessQueryValue` identity impl to work on non-`Option` types.
2. Allow `ProcessQueryValue` to wrap its output in an `EarlyBinder`, to simplify `explicit_item_bounds`/`explicit_item_super_predicates`.
3. Use `{ table }` and friends more when possible.
Deny `wasm_c_abi` lint to nudge the last 25%
This shouldn't affect projects indirectly depending on wasm-bindgen because cargo passes `--cap-lints=allow` when building dependencies.
The motivation is that the ecosystem has mostly taken up the versions of wasm-bindgen that are compatible in general, but ~25% or so of recent downloads remain on lower versions. However, this change might still be unnecessarily disruptive. I mostly propose it as a discussion point.
linker: Synchronize native library search in rustc and linker
Also search for static libraries with alternative naming (`libname.a`) on MSVC when producing executables or dynamic libraries, and not just rlibs.
This unblocks https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123436.
try-job: x86_64-msvc
Don't make statement nonterminals match pattern nonterminals
Right now, the heuristic we use to check if a token may begin a pattern nonterminal falls back to `may_be_ident`:
ef71f1047e/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/nonterminal.rs (L21-L37)
This has the unfortunate side effect that a `stmt` nonterminal eagerly matches against a `pat` nonterminal, leading to a parse error:
```rust
macro_rules! m {
($pat:pat) => {};
($stmt:stmt) => {};
}
macro_rules! m2 {
($stmt:stmt) => {
m! { $stmt }
};
}
m2! { let x = 1 }
```
This PR fixes it by more accurately reflecting the set of nonterminals that may begin a pattern nonterminal.
As a side-effect, I modified `Token::can_begin_pattern` to work correctly and used that in `Parser::nonterminal_may_begin_with`.
We want to allow setting this on the CLI, override it only in MIR
passes, and disable it altogether in mir-opt tests.
The default value is "only for NLL MIR dumps", which is considered off
for all intents and purposes, except for `rustc_borrowck` when an NLL
MIR dump is requested.
Several compiler functions have `Option<!>` for their return type.
That's odd. The only valid return value is `None`, so why is this type
used?
Because it lets you write certain patterns slightly more concisely. E.g.
if you have these common patterns:
```
let Some(a) = f() else { return };
let Ok(b) = g() else { return };
```
you can shorten them to these:
```
let a = f()?;
let b = g().ok()?;
```
Huh.
An `Option` return type typically designates success/failure. How should
I interpret the type signature of a function that always returns (i.e.
doesn't panic), does useful work (modifying `&mut` arguments), and yet
only ever fails? This idiom subverts the type system for a cute
syntactic trick.
Furthermore, returning `Option<!>` from a function F makes things
syntactically more convenient within F, but makes things worse at F's
callsites. The callsites can themselves use `?` with F but should not,
because they will get an unconditional early return, which is almost
certainly not desirable. Instead the return value should be ignored.
(Note that some of callsites of `process_operand`, `process_immedate`,
`process_assign` actually do use `?`, though the early return doesn't
matter in these cases because nothing of significance comes after those
calls. Ugh.)
When I first saw this pattern I had no idea how to interpret it, and it
took me several minutes of close reading to understand everything I've
written above. I even started a Zulip thread about it to make sure I
understood it properly. "Save a few characters by introducing types so
weird that compiler devs have to discuss it on Zulip" feels like a bad
trade-off to me. This commit replaces all the `Option<!>` return values
and uses `else`/`return` (or something similar) to replace the relevant
`?` uses. The result is slightly more verbose but much easier to
understand.
This keeps it up-to-date by moving from 0.5.6 to 0.5.7. While here I've
additionally updated some other wasm-related dependencies in the
workspace to keep them up-to-date and try to avoid duplicate versions as
well.
Use a reduced recursion limit in the MIR inliner's cycle breaker
This probably papers over https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128887, but primarily I'm opening this PR because multiple compiler people have thought about making this change which probably means it's a good idea.
r? compiler-errors
debug-fmt-detail option
I'd like to propose a new option that makes `#[derive(Debug)]` generate no-op implementations that don't print anything, and makes `{:?}` in format strings a no-op.
There are a couple of motivations for this:
1. A more thorough stripping of debug symbols. Binaries stripped of debug symbols still retain some of them through `Debug` implementations. It's hard to avoid that without compiler's help, because debug formatting can be used in many places, including dependencies, and their loggers, asserts, panics, etc.
* In my testing it gives about 2% binary size reduction on top of all other binary-minimizing best practices (including `panic_immediate_abort`). There are targets like Web WASM or embedded where users pay attention to binary sizes.
* Users distributing closed-source binaries may not want to "leak" any symbol names as a matter of principle.
2. Adds ability to test whether code depends on specifics of the `Debug` format implementation in unwise ways (e.g. trying to get data unavailable via public interface, or using it as a serialization format). Because current Rust's debug implementation doesn't change, there's a risk of it becoming a fragile de-facto API that [won't be possible to change in the future](https://www.hyrumslaw.com/). An option that "breaks" it can act as a [grease](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8701.html).
This implementation is a `-Z fmt-debug=opt` flag that takes:
* `full` — the default, current state.
* `none` — makes derived `Debug` and `{:?}` no-ops. Explicit `impl Debug for T` implementations are left unharmed, but `{:?}` format won't use them, so they may get dead-code eliminated if they aren't invoked directly.
* `shallow` — makes derived `Debug` print only the type's name, without recursing into fields. Fieldless enums print their variant names. `{:?}` works.
The `shallow` option is a compromise between minimizing the `Debug` code, and compatibility. There are popular proc-macro crates that use `Debug::fmt` as a way to convert enum values into their Rust source code.
There's a corresponding `cfg` flag: `#[cfg(fmt_debug = "none")]` that can be used in user code to react to this setting to minimize custom `Debug` implementations or remove unnecessary formatting helper functions.
