Refactor AST trait bound modifiers
Instead of having two types to represent trait bound modifiers in the parser / the AST (`parser::ty::BoundModifiers` & `ast::TraitBoundModifier`), only to map one to the other later, just use `parser::ty::BoundModifiers` (moved & renamed to `ast::TraitBoundModifiers`).
The struct type is more extensible and easier to deal with (see [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119099/files#r1430749981) and [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119099/files#r1430752116) for context) since it more closely models what it represents: A compound of two kinds of modifiers, constness and polarity. Modeling this as an enum (the now removed `ast::TraitBoundModifier`) meant one had to add a new variant per *combination* of modifier kind, which simply isn't scalable and which lead to a lot of explicit non-DRY matches.
NB: `hir::TraitBoundModifier` being an enum is fine since HIR doesn't need to worry representing invalid modifier kind combinations as those get rejected during AST validation thereby immensely cutting down the number of possibilities.
Collect lang items from AST, get rid of `GenericBound::LangItemTrait`
r? `@cjgillot`
cc #115178
Looking forward, the work to remove `QPath::LangItem` will also be significantly more difficult, but I plan on doing it as well. Specifically, we have to change:
1. A lot of `rustc_ast_lowering` for things like expr `..`
2. A lot of astconv, since we actually instantiate lang and non-lang paths quite differently.
3. A ton of diagnostics and clippy lints that are special-cased via `QPath::LangItem`
Meanwhile, it was pretty easy to remove `GenericBound::LangItemTrait`, so I just did that here.
Introduce support for `async gen` blocks
I'm delighted to demonstrate that `async gen` block are not very difficult to support. They're simply coroutines that yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and return `()`.
**This PR is WIP and in draft mode for now** -- I'm mostly putting it up to show folks that it's possible. This PR needs a lang-team experiment associated with it or possible an RFC, since I don't think it falls under the jurisdiction of the `gen` RFC that was recently authored by oli (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3513, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078).
### Technical note on the pre-generator-transform yield type:
The reason that the underlying coroutines yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and not `Poll<T>` (which would make more sense, IMO, for the pre-transformed coroutine), is because the `TransformVisitor` that is used to turn coroutines into built-in state machine functions would have to destructure and reconstruct the latter into the former, which requires at least inserting a new basic block (for a `switchInt` terminator, to match on the `Poll` discriminant).
This does mean that the desugaring (at the `rustc_ast_lowering` level) of `async gen` blocks is a bit more involved. However, since we already need to intercept both `.await` and `yield` operators, I don't consider it much of a technical burden.
r? `@ghost`
never_patterns: Parse match arms with no body
Never patterns are meant to signal unreachable cases, and thus don't take bodies:
```rust
let ptr: *const Option<!> = ...;
match *ptr {
None => { foo(); }
Some(!),
}
```
This PR makes rustc accept the above, and enforces that an arm has a body xor is a never pattern. This affects parsing of match arms even with the feature off, so this is delicate. (Plus this is my first non-trivial change to the parser).
~~The last commit is optional; it introduces a bit of churn to allow the new suggestions to be machine-applicable. There may be a better solution? I'm not sure.~~ EDIT: I removed that commit
r? `@compiler-errors`
Remove `#[rustc_host]`, use internal desugaring
Also removed a way for users to explicitly specify the host param since that isn't particularly useful. This should eliminate any pain with encoding attributes across crates and etc.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Add `never_patterns` feature gate
This PR adds the feature gate and most basic parsing for the experimental `never_patterns` feature. See the tracking issue (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118155) for details on the experiment.
`@scottmcm` has agreed to be my lang-team liaison for this experiment.
They're identical to the same-named types from `ast`. I find it silly
(and inefficient) to have all this boilerplate code to convert one type
to an identical type.
There is already a small amount of type sharing between the AST and HIR,
e.g. `Attribute`, `MacroDef`.
The commit adds a `pub use` to `rustc_hir` so that, for example,
`ast::BinOp` can also be referred to as `hir::BinOp`. This is so the
many existing `hir`-qualified mentions of these types don't need to
change.
The commit also moves a couple of operations from the (removed) HIR
types to the AST types, e.g. `is_by_value`.
Implement `gen` blocks in the 2024 edition
Coroutines tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43122
`gen` block tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078
This PR implements `gen` blocks that implement `Iterator`. Most of the logic with `async` blocks is shared, and thus I renamed various types that were referring to `async` specifically.
An example usage of `gen` blocks is
```rust
fn foo() -> impl Iterator<Item = i32> {
gen {
yield 42;
for i in 5..18 {
if i.is_even() { continue }
yield i * 2;
}
}
}
```
The limitations (to be resolved) of the implementation are listed in the tracking issue
There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second
version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid
uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later
passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid
location, sometimes causing ICEs.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a
valid location.
- Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let
expressions.
