Rollup of 19 pull requests
Successful merges:
- rust-lang/rust#144400 (`tests/ui/issues/`: The Issues Strike Back [3/N])
- rust-lang/rust#144764 ([codegen] assume the tag, not the relative discriminant)
- rust-lang/rust#144807 (Streamline config in bootstrap)
- rust-lang/rust#144899 (Print CGU reuse statistics in `-Zprint-mono-items`)
- rust-lang/rust#144909 (Add new `test::print_merged_doctests_times` used by rustdoc to display more detailed time information)
- rust-lang/rust#144912 (Resolver: introduce a conditionally mutable Resolver for (non-)speculative resolution.)
- rust-lang/rust#144914 (Add support for `ty::Instance` path shortening in diagnostics)
- rust-lang/rust#144931 ([win][arm64ec] Fix msvc-wholearchive for Arm64EC)
- rust-lang/rust#144999 (coverage: Remove all unstable support for MC/DC instrumentation)
- rust-lang/rust#145009 (A couple small changes for rust-analyzer next-solver work)
- rust-lang/rust#145030 (GVN: Do not flatten derefs with ProjectionElem::Index. )
- rust-lang/rust#145042 (stdarch subtree update)
- rust-lang/rust#145047 (move `type_check` out of `compute_regions`)
- rust-lang/rust#145051 (Prevent name collisions with internal implementation details)
- rust-lang/rust#145053 (Add a lot of NLL `known-bug` tests)
- rust-lang/rust#145055 (Move metadata symbol export from exported_non_generic_symbols to exported_symbols)
- rust-lang/rust#145057 (Clean up some resolved test regressions of const trait removals in std)
- rust-lang/rust#145068 (Readd myself to review queue)
- rust-lang/rust#145070 (Add minimal `armv7a-vex-v5` tier three target)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Add minimal `armv7a-vex-v5` tier three target
This PR adds minimal, `no_std` support for the VEX V5 Brain, a robotics microcontroller used in educational contexts. In comparison to rust-lang/rust#131530, which aimed to add this same target, these changes are limited in scope to the compiler.
## Tier 3 Target Policy Compliance
> A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
Lewis McClelland (`@lewisfm),` `@Tropix126,` Gavin Niederman (`@Gavin-Niederman),` and Max Niederman (`@max-niederman)` will be the designated maintainers for `armv7a-vex-v5` support.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important even for a tier 3 target.
`armv7a-vex-v5` follows the cpu-vendor-model convention used by most tier three targets. For example: `armv76k-nintendo-3ds` or `armv7k-apple-watchos`.
> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to disambiguate it.
> If possible, use only letters, numbers, dashes and underscores for the name. Periods (.) are known to cause issues in Cargo.
This target name is not confusing.
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
It's using open source tools only.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
>
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Understood.
> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
There are no new dependencies/features required in the current state of this target. Porting the standard library will likely require depending on the crate `vex-sdk` which is MIT-licensed and contains bindings to the VEX SDK runtime (which is included in VEXos).
> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries. Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications built for the target, but those libraries must not be required for code generation for the target; cross-compilation to the target must not require such libraries at all. For instance, rustc built for the target may depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library, but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
>
> "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous" legal/licensing terms include but are not limited to: non-disclosure requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms, requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its developers or users.
Although the VEX V5 Brain and its SDK are proprietary, this target does not link to any proprietary binaries or libraries, and is based solely on publicly available information about the VEX SDK.
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
>
> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
I understand.
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
This initial PR only contains a compiler target definition to teach the `cc` crate about this target. Porting the standard library is the next step for this target.
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
This target is documented in `src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/armv7a-vex-v5.md`.
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via `@)` to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
>
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.
I understand and assent.
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
>
> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
I understand and assent.
> Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of rustc's supported backends from any host target. (Having support in a fork of the backend is not sufficient, it must be upstream.)
`armv7a-vex-v5` has nearly identical codegen to `armv7a-none-eabihf`, so this is not an issue.
> If a tier 3 target stops meeting these requirements, or the target maintainers no longer have interest or time, or the target shows no signs of activity and has not built for some time, or removing the target would improve the quality of the Rust codebase, we may post a PR to remove it; any such PR will be CCed to the target maintainers (and potentially other people who have previously worked on the target), to check potential interest in improving the situation.
I understand.
Move metadata symbol export from exported_non_generic_symbols to exported_symbols
The metadata symbol must not be encoded in the crate metadata, and must be exported from proc-macros. Handling the export of the metadata symbol in exported_symbols handles both things at once without requiring manual fixups elsewhere.
move `type_check` out of `compute_regions`
A step towards rust-lang/rust#139587. I don't think there's a clear reason for why MIR type check should be in `compute_regions` and this simplifies future PRs here.
coverage: Remove all unstable support for MC/DC instrumentation
Preliminary support for a partial implementation of “Modified Condition/Decision Coverage” instrumentation was added behind the unstable flag `-Zcoverage-options=mcdc` in 2024. These are the most substantial PRs involved:
- rust-lang/rust#123409
- rust-lang/rust#126733
At the time, I accepted these PRs with relatively modest scrutiny, because I did not want to stand in the way of independent work on MC/DC instrumentation. My hope was that ongoing work by interested contributors would lead to the code becoming clearer and more maintainable over time.
---
However, that MC/DC code has proven itself to be a major burden on overall maintenance of coverage instrumentation, and a major obstacle to other planned improvements, such as internal changes needed for proper support of macro expansion regions.
I have also become reluctant to accept any further MC/DC-related changes that would increase this burden.
That tension has resulted in an unhappy impasse. On one hand, the present MC/DC implementation is not yet complete, and shows little sign of being complete at an acceptable level of code quality in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, the continued existence of this partial MC/DC implementation is imposing serious maintenance burdens on every other aspect of coverage instrumentation, and is preventing some of the very improvements that would make it easier to accept expanded MC/DC support in the future.
While I know this will be disappointing to some, I think the healthy way forward is accept that I made the wrong call in accepting the current implementation, and to remove it entirely from the compiler.
Add support for `ty::Instance` path shortening in diagnostics
Make `ty::Instance` able to use `short_string` and usable in structured errors directly. Remove some ad-hoc type shortening logic.
Resolver: introduce a conditionally mutable Resolver for (non-)speculative resolution.
This pr introduces a `CmResolver`, a wrapper around the main resolver which gives out mutable access given a condition.
`CmResolver` only allows mutation when we’re not in speculative import resolution. This ensures we can’t accidentally mutate the resolver during this process, which is important as we move towards a batched resolution algorithm.
This also changes functions that are used during speculative import resolution to take a `CmResolver` instead of a `&mut Resolver`.
Also introduces a new kind of "smart pointer" which has the behaviour described above:
```rust
/// A wrapper around a mutable reference that conditionally allows mutable access.
pub(crate) struct RefOrMut<'a, T> {
p: &'a mut T,
mutable: bool,
}
type CmResolver<'r, 'ra, 'tcx> = RefOrMut<'r, Resolver<'ra, 'tcx>>;
```
r? petrochenkov
Print CGU reuse statistics in `-Zprint-mono-items`
I'm trying to expose more information about incremental profiling from rustc (https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/131828-t-compiler/topic/Profiling.2Fanalysis.20of.20incremental.20builds/with/531383501). One of the things that would be quite useful to expose is the CGU reuse state, so that when you do a rebuild, you can see all the CGUs (and all the functions) that had to be recompiled.
Currently, we have (AFAIK) two ways of outputting monomorphization statistics:
1) `-Zdump-mono-stats` outputs statistics about number of instantiations and expected compilation cost of individual functions in the local crate being compiled. It can be outputted either as Markdown or JSON.
2) `-Zprint-mono-items` outputs a pair (item, CGU) for each monomorphized item.
I was thinking about recording CGU statistics in the self-profile output, but I realized that as a simpler step, we could just add CGU reuse data to `-Zprint-mono-items`, as an additional output. That is what this PR does.
[codegen] assume the tag, not the relative discriminant
Address the issue mentioned in <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/134024#issuecomment-3131782555> by changing discriminant calculation to `assume` on the originally-loaded `tag`, rather than on `cast(tag)-OFFSET`.
The previous way does make the *purpose* of the assume clearer, IMHO, since you see `assume(x != 4); if p { x } else { 4 }`, but doing it this way instead means that the `add`s optimize away in LLVM21, which is more important. And this new way is still easily thought of as being like metadata on the load saying specifically which value is impossible.
Demo of the LLVM20 vs LLVM21 difference: <https://llvm.godbolt.org/z/n54x5Mq1T>
r? ``@nikic``
Derive `Hash` for rustc_public types
This derives `Hash` for the rustc_public versions of `Rvalue`, `Place`, `Span`, and all the types they contain. As far as I can tell, the internal versions of all these types already implement `Hash`, so it would be helpful if the public versions implemented it too!
used for stack buffer overruns if link.exe exits with that exit code
`STATUS_STACK_BUFFER_OVERRUN` is also used for fast abnormal program
termination, e.g. by abort(). Emit a special diagnostic to let people
know that this most likely doesn't indicate a stack buffer overrun.
> A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)
Lewis McClelland (lewisfm), Tropix126, Gavin Niederman (Gavin-Niederman), and Max Niederman (max-niederman) will be the designated maintainers for `armv7a-vex-v5` support.
> Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important even for a tier 3 target.
`armv7a-vex-v5` follows the cpu-vendor-model convention used by most tier three targets. For example: `armv76k-nintendo-3ds` or `armv7k-apple-watchos`.
> Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to disambiguate it.
> If possible, use only letters, numbers, dashes and underscores for the name. Periods (.) are known to cause issues in Cargo.
This target name is not confusing.
> Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.
It's using open source tools only.
> The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
>
> Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
Understood.
> The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
There are no new dependencies/features required in the current state of this target. Porting the standard library will likely require depending on the crate `vex-sdk` which is MIT-licensed and contains bindings to the VEX SDK runtime (which is included in VEXos).
> Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries. Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications built for the target, but those libraries must not be required for code generation for the target; cross-compilation to the target must not require such libraries at all. For instance, rustc built for the target may depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library, but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
>
> "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous" legal/licensing terms include but are not limited to: non-disclosure requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms, requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its developers or users.
Although the VEX V5 Brain and its SDK are proprietary, this target does not link to any proprietary binaries or libraries, and is based solely on publicly available information about the VEX SDK.
> Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.
>
> This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.
I understand.
> Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.
This initial PR only contains a compiler target definition to teach the `cc` crate about this target. Porting the standard library is the next step for this target.
> The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.
This target is documented in `src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support/armv7a-vex-v5.md`.
> Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via @) to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.
>
> Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.
I understand and assent.
> Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.
>
> In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.
I understand and assent.
> Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of rustc's supported backends from any host target. (Having support in a fork of the backend is not sufficient, it must be upstream.)
`armv7a-vex-v5` has nearly identical codegen to `armv7a-none-eabihf`, so this is not an issue.
> If a tier 3 target stops meeting these requirements, or the target maintainers no longer have interest or time, or the target shows no signs of activity and has not built for some time, or removing the target would improve the quality of the Rust codebase, we may post a PR to remove it; any such PR will be CCed to the target maintainers (and potentially other people who have previously worked on the target), to check potential interest in improving the situation.
I understand.
Co-authored-by: Max Niederman <max@maxniederman.com>
Co-authored-by: Tropical <42101043+Tropix126@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Gavin Niederman <gavinniederman@gmail.com>
When suggesting field access which would encounter a method not found, do not suggest pinning when those methods are on `impl Pin` itself.
```
error[E0599]: no method named `get_ref` found for tuple `(BufReader<File>,)` in the current scope
--> $DIR/missing-field-access.rs:11:15
|
LL | let x = f.get_ref();
| ^^^^^^^ method not found in `(BufReader<File>,)`
|
help: one of the expressions' fields has a method of the same name
|
LL | let x = f.0.get_ref();
| ++
```
instead of
```
error[E0599]: no method named `get_ref` found for tuple `(BufReader<File>,)` in the current scope
--> $DIR/missing-field-access.rs:11:15
|
LL | let x = f.get_ref();
| ^^^^^^^ method not found in `(BufReader<File>,)`
|
help: one of the expressions' fields has a method of the same name
|
LL | let x = f.0.get_ref();
| ++
help: consider pinning the expression
|
LL ~ let mut pinned = std::pin::pin!(f);
LL ~ let x = pinned.as_ref().get_ref();
|
```
When looking for the field names and types of a given type, account for tuples. This allows suggestions for incorrectly nested field accesses and field name typos to trigger as intended. Previously these suggestions only worked on `ty::Adt`, including tuple structs which are no different to tuples, so they should behave the same in suggestions.
```
error[E0599]: no method named `get_ref` found for tuple `(BufReader<File>,)` in the current scope
--> $DIR/missing-field-access.rs:11:15
|
LL | let x = f.get_ref();
| ^^^^^^^ method not found in `(BufReader<File>,)`
|
help: one of the expressions' fields has a method of the same name
|
LL | let x = f.0.get_ref();
| ++
```
`TyCtxt::short_string` ensures that user visible type paths aren't overwhelming on the terminal output, and properly saves the long name to disk as a side-channel. We already use these throughout the compiler and have been using them as needed when users find cases where the output is verbose. This is a proactive search of some cases to use `short_string`.
We add support for shortening the path of "trait path only".
Every manual use of `short_string` is a bright marker that that error should be using structured diagnostics instead (as they have proper handling of long types without the maintainer having to think abou tthem).
When we don't actually print out a shortened type we don't need the "use `--verbose`" note.
On E0599 show type identity to avoid expanding the receiver's generic parameters.
Unify wording on `long_ty_path` everywhere.
The metadata symbol must not be encoded in the crate metadata, and must
be exported from proc-macros. Handling the export of the metadata symbol
in exported_symbols handles both things at once without requiring manual
fixups elsewhere.
The implementation of the linkage attribute inside extern blocks defines
symbols starting with _rust_extern_with_linkage_. If someone tries to
also define this symbol you will get a symbol conflict or even an ICE.
By adding an unpredictable component to the symbol name, this becomes
less of an issue.
bump bootstrap compiler to 1.90 beta
There were significantly less `cfg(bootstrap)` and `cfg(not(bootstrap))` this release. Presumably due to the fact that we change the bootstrap stage orderings to reduce the need for them and it was successful 🙏
Reimplement `print_region` in `type_name.rs`.
Broken by rust-lang/rust#144776; this is reachable after all.
Fixesrust-lang/rust#144994.
The commit also adds a lot more cases to the `type-name-basic.rs`, because it's currently very anaemic. This includes some cases where region omission does very badly; these are marked with FIXME.
r? `@fmease`
Allow `cargo fix` to partially apply `mismatched_lifetime_syntaxes`
Workaround for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/144588#issuecomment-3128445308
Not all suggestions have to be hidden from `cargo fix`, only redundant ones. The redundant ones are already hidden from the user, so the same `tool_only` flag can be used to hide them from `cargo fix`. This way `cargo fix` will be able to correctly apply the fixes, and will apply only the fix that the compiler visibly suggests to the user.
Upgrade semicolon_in_expressions_from_macros from warn to deny
This is already warn-by-default, and a future compatibility warning (FCW) that warns in dependencies. Upgrade it to deny-by-default, as the next step towards hard error.
Per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/79813#issuecomment-3109105631
lower pattern bindings in the order they're written and base drop order on primary bindings' order
To fixrust-lang/rust#142163, this PR does two things:
- Makes match arms base their drop order on the first sub-branch instead of the last sub-branch. Together with the second change, this makes bindings' drop order correspond to the relative order of when each binding first appears (i.e. the order of the "primary" bindings).
- Lowers pattern bindings in the order they're written (still treating the right-hand side of a ``@`` as coming before the binding on the left). In each sub-branch of a match arm, this is the order that would be obtained if the or-alternatives chosen in that sub-branch were inlined into the arm's pattern. This both affects drop order (making bindings in or-patterns not be dropped first) and fixes the issue in [this test](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/2a023bf80a6fbd6a06d5460a34eb247b986286ed/tests/ui/pattern/bindings-after-at/bind-by-copy-or-pat.rs) from rust-lang/rust#121716.
My approach to the second point is admittedly a bit trickier than may be necessary. To avoid passing around a counter when building `FlatPat`s, I've instead added just enough information to recover the original structure of the pattern's bindings from a `MatchTreeSubBranch`'s path through the `Candidate` tree. Some alternatives:
- We could use a counter, then sort bindings by their ordinals when making `MatchTreeSubBranch`es.
- I'd like to experiment with always merging sub-candidates and removing `test_remaining_match_pairs_after_or`; that would require lowering bindings and guards in a different way. That makes it a bigger change too, though, so I figure it might be simplest to start here.
- For a very big change, we could track which or-alternatives succeed at runtime to base drop order on the binding order in the particular alternatives matched.
This is a breaking change. It will need a crater run, language team sign-off, and likely updates to the Reference.
This will conflict with rust-lang/rust#143376 and probably also rust-lang/rust#143028, so they shouldn't be merged at the same time.
r? `@matthewjasper` or `@Nadrieril`
emit `StorageLive` and schedule `StorageDead` for `let`-`else`'s bindings after matching
This PR removes special handling of `let`-`else`, so that `StorageLive`s are emitted and `StorageDead`s are scheduled only after pattern-matching has succeeded. This means `StorageDead`s will no longer appear for all of its bindings on the `else` branch (because they're not live yet) and its drops&`StorageDead`s will happen together like they do elsewhere, rather than having all drops first, then all `StorageDead`s.
This fixesrust-lang/rust#142056, and is therefore a breaking change. I believe it'll need a crater run and a T-lang nomination/fcp thereafter. Specifically, this makes drop-checking slightly more restrictive for `let`-`else` to match the behavior of other variable binding forms. An alternative approach could be to change the relative order of drops and `StorageDead`s for other binding forms to make drop-checking more permissive, but making that consistent would be a significantly more involved change.
r? mir
cc `````@dingxiangfei2009`````
`````@rustbot````` label +T-lang +needs-crater
bors