Prefer to use repeat_n over repeat().take()
More from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/147464, but batch processed with `ast-grep` to find and replace.
second commit add notes for library: affaf532f9
r? ``@RalfJung``
clarify wording of match ergonomics diagnostics (`rust_2024_incompatible_pat` lint and error)
Partially addresses rust-lang/rust#143557:
- Uses different wording than the Edition Guide chapter, to hopefully stand alone a bit better. Instead of referring to the "default binding mode", it now talks about what can't be written "within elided reference patterns". I ended up going with "elided" instead of "implicit" in hope that it reads bit less like it should behave the same as an explicit reference pattern, but I'm not totally happy with that wording.
- The explanatory note still points to where the default binding mode was introduced, but only refers to its effect, not what we call it. How that relates to the rest of the diagnostic may still be a bit of a puzzle, but hopefully it isn't too much of one? It also doesn't make sense anymore for the case of `&` written under a by-ref binding mode, so I've left the note out in that case (but kept the label). It's more cramped, but talking about binding modes would feel like a non-sequitur for the error about `&` patterns without further explanation.
- Links to the stable version of the Edition Guide instead of the nightly version. It looks like almost every link to the Edition Guide in diagnostics is to the nightly version, presumably for the same reason as here: the diagnostics were added before the new Edition was stabilized, then never updated. I'll make a separate PR to clean up the others.
This only changes the diagnostic messages, not the code suggestion or the Edition Guide.
r? `@Nadrieril` or reassign
Turn ProjectionElem::Subtype into CastKind::Subtype
I noticed that drop elaboration can't, in general, handle `ProjectionElem::SubType`. It creates a disjoint move path that overlaps with other move paths. (`Subslice` does too, and I'm working on a different PR to make that special case less fragile.) If its skipped and treated as the same move path as its parent then `MovePath.place` has multiple possible projections. (It would probably make sense to remove all `Subtype` projections for the canonical place but it doesn't make sense to have this special case for a problem that doesn't actually occur in real MIR.)
The only reason this doesn't break is that `Subtype` is always the sole projection of the local its applied to. For the same reason, it works fine as a `CastKind` so I figured that makes more sense than documenting and validating this hidden invariant.
cc rust-lang/rust#112651, rust-lang/rust#133258
r? Icnr (bc you've been the main person dealing with `Subtype` it looks like)
Allow `&raw [mut | const]` for union field in safe code
fixesrust-lang/rust#141264
r? ``@Veykril``
Unresolved questions:
- [x] Any edge cases?
- [x] How this works with rust-analyzer (because all I've did is prevent compiler from emitting error in `&raw` context) (rust-lang/rust-analyzer#19867)
- [x] Should we allow `addr_of!` and `addr_of_mut!` as well? In current version they both (`&raw` and `addr_of!`) are allowed (They are the same)
- [x] Is chain of union fields is a safe? (Yes)
Clarified error note for usize range matching
Fixesrust-lang/rust#146476
This is kinda rough, but it gets the point across a little better and stays short.
This was done in #145740 and #145947. It is causing problems for people
using r-a on anything that uses the rustc-dev rustup package, e.g. Miri,
clippy.
This repository has lots of submodules and subtrees and various
different projects are carved out of pieces of it. It seems like
`[workspace.dependencies]` will just be more trouble than it's worth.
MIR dumping is a mess. There are lots of functions and entry points,
e.g. `dump_mir`, `dump_mir_with_options`, `dump_polonius_mir`,
`dump_mir_to_writer`. Also, it's crucial that `create_dump_file` is
never called without `dump_enabled` first being checked, but there is no
mechanism for ensuring this and it's hard to tell if it is satisfied on
all paths. (`dump_enabled` is checked twice on some paths, however!)
This commit introduces `MirWriter`, which controls the MIR writing, and
encapsulates the `extra_data` closure and `options`. Two existing
functions are now methods of this type. It sets reasonable defaults,
allowing the removal of many `|_, _| Ok(())` closures.
The commit also introduces `MirDumper`, which is layered on top of
`MirWriter`, and which manages the creation of the dump files,
encapsulating pass names, disambiguators, etc. Four existing functions
are now methods of this type.
- `MirDumper::new` will only succeed if dumps are enabled, and will
return `None` otherwise, which makes it impossible to dump when you
shouldn't.
- It also sets reasonable defaults for various things like
disambiguators, which means you no longer need to specify them in many
cases. When they do need to be specified, it's now done via setter
methods.
- It avoids some repetition. E.g. `dump_nll_mir` previously specifed the
pass name `"nll"` four times and the disambiguator `&0` three times;
now it specifies them just once, to put them in the `MirDumper`.
- For Polonius, the `extra_data` closure can now be specified earlier,
which avoids having to pass some arguments through some functions.
Add a method to dump MIR in the middle of MIR building
This makes it easier to debug issues with MIR building by inserting dump_for_debugging calls around the suspected code responsible for the bad MIR.
add a scope for `if let` guard temporaries and bindings
This fixes my concern with `if let` guard drop order, namely that the guard's bindings and temporaries were being dropped after their arm's pattern's bindings, instead of before (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/141295#issuecomment-2968975596). The guard's bindings and temporaries now live in a new scope, which extends until (but not past) the end of the arm, guaranteeing they're dropped before the arm's pattern's bindings.
This only introduces a new scope for match arms with guards. Perf results (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143376#issuecomment-3034922617) seemed to indicate there wasn't a significant hit to introduce a new scope on all match arms, but guard patterns (rust-lang/rust#129967) will likely benefit from only adding new scopes when necessary (with some patterns requiring multiple nested scopes).
Tracking issue for `if_let_guard`: rust-lang/rust#51114
Tests are adapted from examples by `@traviscross,` `@est31,` and myself on rust-lang/rust#141295.
