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.
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #122670 (Fix bug where `option_env!` would return `None` when env var is present but not valid Unicode)
- #131095 (Use environment variables instead of command line arguments for merged doctests)
- #131339 (Expand set_ptr_value / with_metadata_of docs)
- #131652 (Move polarity into `PolyTraitRef` rather than storing it on the side)
- #131675 (Update lint message for ABI not supported)
- #131681 (Fix up-to-date checking for run-make tests)
- #131702 (Suppress import errors for traits that couldve applied for method lookup error)
- #131703 (Resolved python deprecation warning in publish_toolstate.py)
- #131710 (Remove `'apostrophes'` from `rustc_parse_format`)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add `&pin (mut|const) T` type position sugar
This adds parser support for `&pin mut T` and `&pin const T` references. These are desugared to `Pin<&mut T>` and `Pin<&T>` in the AST lowering phases.
This PR currently includes #130526 since that one is in the commit queue. Only the most recent commits (bd450027eb4a94b814a7dd9c0fa29102e6361149 and following) are new.
Tracking:
- #130494
r? `@compiler-errors`
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
- fix for divergence
- fix error message
- fix another cranelift test
- fix some cranelift things
- don't set the NORETURN option for naked asm
- fix use of naked_asm! in doc comment
- fix use of naked_asm! in run-make test
- use `span_bug` in unreachable branch
Use the same precedence for all macro-like exprs
No need to make these have a different precedence since they're all written like `whatever!(expr)`, and it makes it simpler when adding new macro-based built-in operators in the future.
Ever since #125915, some `ast::AnonConst`s turn into `hir::ConstArgKind::Path`s,
which don't have associated `DefId`s. To deal with the fact that we don't have
resolution information in `DefCollector`, we decided to implement a process
where if the anon const *appeared* to be trivial (i.e., `N` or `{ N }`), we
would avoid creating a def for it in `DefCollector`. If later, in AST lowering,
we realized it turned out to be a unit struct literal, or we were lowering it
to something that didn't use `hir::ConstArg`, we'd create its def there.
However, let's say we have a macro `m!()` that expands to a reference to a free
constant `FOO`. If we use `m!()` in the body of an anon const (e.g., `Foo<{ m!() }>`),
then in def collection, it appears to be a nontrivial anon const and we create
a def. But the macro expands to something that looks like a trivial const arg,
but is not, so in AST lowering we "fix" the mistake we assumed def collection
made and create a def for it. This causes a duplicate definition ICE.
The ideal long-term fix for this is a bit unclear. One option is to delay def
creation for all expression-like nodes until AST lowering (see #128844 for an
incomplete attempt at this). This would avoid issues like this one that are
caused by hacky workarounds. However, this approach has some downsides as well,
and the best approach is yet to be determined.
In the meantime, this PR fixes the bug by delaying def creation for anon consts
whose bodies are macro invocations until after we expand the macro and know
what is inside it. This is accomplished by adding information to create the
anon const's def to the data in `Resolver.invocation_parents`.
Properly report error on `const gen fn`
Fixes#130232
Also removes some (what I thought were unused) functions, and fixes a bug in clippy where we considered `gen fn` to be the same as `fn` because it was only built to consider asyncness.
Fix `clippy::useless_conversion`
Self-explanatory. Probably the last clippy change I'll actually put up since this is the only other one I've actually seen in the wild.
improve error message when `global_asm!` uses `asm!` options
specifically, what was
error: expected one of `)`, `att_syntax`, or `raw`, found `preserves_flags`
--> $DIR/bad-options.rs:45:25
|
LL | global_asm!("", options(preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected one of `)`, `att_syntax`, or `raw`
is now
error: the `preserves_flags` option cannot be used with `global_asm!`
--> $DIR/bad-options.rs:45:25
|
LL | global_asm!("", options(preserves_flags));
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the `preserves_flags` option is not meaningful for global-scoped inline assembly
mirroring the phrasing of the [reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/inline-assembly.html#options).
This is also a bit of a refactor for a future `naked_asm!` macro (for use in `#[naked]` functions). Currently this sort of error can come up when switching from inline to global asm, or when a user just isn't that experienced with assembly. With `naked_asm!` added to the mix hitting this error is more likely.
Rollup of 6 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #126908 (Use Cow<'static, str> for InlineAsmTemplatePiece::String)
- #127999 (Inject arm32 shims into Windows metadata generation)
- #128137 (CStr: derive PartialEq, Eq; add test for Ord)
- #128185 (Fix a span error when parsing a wrong param of function.)
- #128187 (Fix 1.80.0 version in RELEASES.md)
- #128189 (Turn an unreachable code path into an ICE)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Added dots at the sentence ends of rustc AST doc
Just a tiny improvement for the AST documentation by bringing consistency to sentence ends. I intentionally didn't terminate every sentence, there are still some members not having them, but at least there's no mixing style on the type level.
Match ergonomics 2024: Implement TC's match ergonomics proposal
Under gate `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024_structural`. Enabling `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024` at the same time allows the union of what the individual gates allow. `@traviscross`
r? `@Nadrieril`
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123076
`@rustbot` label A-edition-2024 A-patterns
Under gate `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024_structural`.
Enabling `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024` at the same time allows the union
of what the individual gates allow.
It currently goes one token too far.
Example: line 259 of `tests/ui/abi/compatibility.rs`:
```
test_abi_compatible!(fn_fn, fn(), fn(i32) -> i32);
```
This commit changes the span for the second element from `fn(),` to
`fn()`, i.e. removes the extraneous comma.
Fix duplicated attributes on nonterminal expressions
This PR fixes a long-standing bug (#86055) whereby expression attributes can be duplicated when expanded through declarative macros.
First, consider how items are parsed in declarative macros:
```
Items:
- parse_nonterminal
- parse_item(ForceCollect::Yes)
- parse_item_
- attrs = parse_outer_attributes
- parse_item_common(attrs)
- maybe_whole!
- collect_tokens_trailing_token
```
The important thing is that the parsing of outer attributes is outside token collection, so the item's tokens don't include the attributes. This is how it's supposed to be.
Now consider how expression are parsed in declarative macros:
```
Exprs:
- parse_nonterminal
- parse_expr_force_collect
- collect_tokens_no_attrs
- collect_tokens_trailing_token
- parse_expr
- parse_expr_res(None)
- parse_expr_assoc_with
- parse_expr_prefix
- parse_or_use_outer_attributes
- parse_expr_dot_or_call
```
The important thing is that the parsing of outer attributes is inside token collection, so the the expr's tokens do include the attributes, i.e. in `AttributesData::tokens`.
This PR fixes the bug by rearranging expression parsing to that outer attribute parsing happens outside of token collection. This requires a number of small refactorings because expression parsing is somewhat complicated. While doing so the PR makes the code a bit cleaner and simpler, by eliminating `parse_or_use_outer_attributes` and `Option<AttrWrapper>` arguments (in favour of the simpler `parse_outer_attributes` and `AttrWrapper` arguments), and simplifying `LhsExpr`.
r? `@petrochenkov`
