1 # Syntax in rust-analyzer
5 This guide describes the current state of syntax trees and parsing in rust-analyzer as of 2020-01-09 ([link to commit](https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/tree/cf5bdf464cad7ceb9a67e07985a3f4d3799ec0b6)).
9 The things described are implemented in two places
11 * [rowan](https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rowan/tree/v0.9.0) -- a generic library for rowan syntax trees.
12 * [ra_syntax](https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/tree/cf5bdf464cad7ceb9a67e07985a3f4d3799ec0b6/crates/ra_syntax) crate inside rust-analyzer which wraps `rowan` into rust-analyzer specific API.
13 Nothing in rust-analyzer except this crate knows about `rowan`.
14 * [ra_parser](https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/tree/cf5bdf464cad7ceb9a67e07985a3f4d3799ec0b6/crates/ra_parser) crate parses input tokens into an `ra_syntax` tree
18 * Syntax trees are lossless, or full fidelity. All comments and whitespace are preserved.
19 * Syntax trees are semantic-less. They describe *strictly* the structure of a sequence of characters, they don't have hygiene, name resolution or type information attached.
20 * Syntax trees are simple value type. It is possible to create trees for a syntax without any external context.
21 * Syntax trees have intuitive traversal API (parent, children, siblings, etc).
22 * Parsing is lossless (even if the input is invalid, the tree produced by the parser represents it exactly).
23 * Parsing is resilient (even if the input is invalid, parser tries to see as much syntax tree fragments in the input as it can).
24 * Performance is important, it's OK to use `unsafe` if it means better memory/cpu usage.
25 * Keep the parser and the syntax tree isolated from each other, such that they can vary independently.
31 The syntax tree consists of three layers:
34 * SyntaxNodes (aka RedNode)
37 Of these, only GreenNodes store the actual data, the other two layers are (non-trivial) views into green tree.
38 Red-green terminology comes from Roslyn ([link](https://ericlippert.com/2012/06/08/red-green-trees/)) and gives the name to the `rowan` library. Green and syntax nodes are defined in rowan, ast is defined in rust-analyzer.
40 Syntax trees are a semi-transient data structure.
41 In general, frontend does not keep syntax trees for all files in memory.
42 Instead, it *lowers* syntax trees to more compact and rigid representation, which is not full-fidelity, but which can be mapped back to a syntax tree if so desired.
47 GreenNode is a purely-functional tree with arbitrary arity. Conceptually, it is equivalent to the following run of the mill struct:
50 #[derive(PartialEq, Eq, Clone, Copy)]
51 struct SyntaxKind(u16);
53 #[derive(PartialEq, Eq, Clone)]
57 children: Vec<Arc<Either<Node, Token>>>,
60 #[derive(PartialEq, Eq, Clone)]
67 All the difference between the above sketch and the real implementation are strictly due to optimizations.
70 * The tree is untyped. Each node has a "type tag", `SyntaxKind`.
71 * Interior and leaf nodes are distinguished on the type level.
72 * Trivia and non-trivia tokens are not distinguished on the type level.
73 * Each token carries its full text.
74 * The original text can be recovered by concatenating the texts of all tokens in order.
75 * Accessing a child of particular type (for example, parameter list of a function) generally involves linerary traversing the children, looking for a specific `kind`.
76 * Modifying the tree is roughly `O(depth)`.
77 We don't make special efforts to guarantree that the depth is not liner, but, in practice, syntax trees are branchy and shallow.
78 * If mandatory (grammar wise) node is missing from the input, it's just missing from the tree.
79 * If an extra erroneous input is present, it is wrapped into a node with `ERROR` kind, and treated just like any other node.
80 * Parser errors are not a part of syntax tree.
82 An input like `fn f() { 90 + 2 }` might be parsed as
100 INT_NUMBER@9..11 "90"
101 WHITESPACE@11..12 " "
103 WHITESPACE@13..14 " "
105 INT_NUMBER@14..15 "2"
106 WHITESPACE@15..16 " "
112 (significant amount of implementation work here was done by [CAD97](https://github.com/cad97)).
114 To reduce the amount of allocations, the GreenNode is a DST, which uses a single allocation for header and children. Thus, it is only usable behind a pointer
117 *-----------+------+----------+------------+--------+--------+-----+--------*
118 | ref_count | kind | text_len | n_children | child1 | child2 | ... | childn |
119 *-----------+------+----------+------------+--------+--------+-----+--------*
122 To more compactly store the children, we box *both* interior nodes and tokens, and represent
123 `Either<Arc<Node>, Arc<Token>>` as a single pointer with a tag in the last bit.
125 To avoid allocating EVERY SINGLE TOKEN on the heap, syntax trees use interning.
126 Because the tree is fully immutable, it's valid to structurally share subtrees.
127 For example, in `1 + 1`, there will be a *single* token for `1` with ref count 2; the same goes for the ` ` whitespace token.
128 Interior nodes are shared as well (for example in `(1 + 1) * (1 + 1)`).
130 Note that, the result of the interning is an `Arc<Node>`.
131 That is, it's not an index into interning table, so you don't have to have the table around to do anything with the tree.
132 Each tree is fully self-contained (although different trees might share parts).
133 Currently, the interner is created per-file, but it will be easy to use a per-thread or per-some-contex one.
135 We use a `TextSize`, a newtyped `u32`, to store the length of the text.
137 We currently use `SmolStr`, a small object optimized string to store text.
138 This was mostly relevant *before* we implemented tree interning, to avoid allocating common keywords and identifiers. We should switch to storing text data alongside the interned tokens.
140 #### Alternative designs
142 ##### Dealing with trivia
144 In the above model, whitespace is not treated specially.
145 Another alternative (used by swift and roslyn) is to explicitly divide the set of tokens into trivia and non-trivia tokens, and represent non-trivia tokens as
149 kind: NonTriviaTokenKind
151 leading_trivia: Vec<TriviaToken>,
152 trailing_trivia: Vec<TriviaToken>,
156 The tree then contains only non-trivia tokens.
158 Another approach (from Dart) is to, in addition to a syntax tree, link all the tokens into a bidirectional link list.
159 That way, the tree again contains only non-trivia tokens.
161 Explicit trivia nodes, like in `rowan`, are used by IntelliJ.
163 ##### Accessing Children
165 As noted before, accessing a specific child in the node requires a linear traversal of the children (though we can skip tokens, because the tag is encoded in the pointer itself).
166 It is possible to recover O(1) access with another representation.
167 We explicitly store optional and missing (required by the grammar, but not present) nodes.
168 That is, we use `Option<Node>` for children.
169 We also remove trivia tokens from the tree.
170 This way, each child kind generally occupies a fixed position in a parent, and we can use index access to fetch it.
171 The cost is that we now need to allocate space for all not-present optional nodes.
172 So, `fn foo() {}` will have slots for visibility, unsafeness, attributes, abi and return type.
174 IntelliJ uses linear traversal.
175 Roslyn and Swift do `O(1)` access.
179 IntelliJ uses mutable trees.
180 Overall, it creates a lot of additional complexity.
181 However, the API for *editing* syntax trees is nice.
183 For example the assist to move generic bounds to where clause has this code:
186 for typeBound in typeBounds {
187 typeBound.typeParamBounds?.delete()
191 Modeling this with immutable trees is possible, but annoying.
195 A function green tree is not super-convenient to use.
196 The biggest problem is accessing parents (there are no parent pointers!).
197 But there are also "identify" issues.
198 Let's say you want to write a code which builds a list of expressions in a file: `fn collect_exrepssions(file: GreenNode) -> HashSet<GreenNode>`.
210 both copies of the `x + 2` expression are representing by equal (and, with interning in mind, actually the same) green nodes.
211 Green trees just can't differentiate between the two.
213 `SyntaxNode` adds parent pointers and identify semantics to green nodes.
214 They can be called cursors or [zippers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipper_(data_structure)) (fun fact: zipper is a derivative (as in ′) of a data structure).
216 Conceptually, a `SyntaxNode` looks like this:
219 type SyntaxNode = Arc<SyntaxData>;
223 parent: Option<SyntaxNode>,
224 green: Arc<GreeNode>,
228 fn new_root(root: Arc<GreenNode>) -> SyntaxNode {
229 Arc::new(SyntaxData {
235 fn parent(&self) -> Option<SyntaxNode> {
238 fn children(&self) -> impl Iterator<Item = SyntaxNode> {
239 let mut offset = self.offset
240 self.green.children().map(|green_child| {
241 let child_offset = offset;
242 offset += green_child.text_len;
243 Arc::new(SyntaxData {
244 offset: child_offset;
245 parent: Some(Arc::clone(self)),
246 green: Arc::clone(green_child),
252 impl PartialEq for SyntaxNode {
253 fn eq(&self, other: &SyntaxNode) {
254 self.offset == other.offset
255 && Arc::ptr_eq(&self.green, &other.green)
262 * SyntaxNode remembers its parent node (and, transitively, the path to the root of the tree)
263 * SyntaxNode knows its *absolute* text offset in the whole file
264 * Equality is based on identity. Comparing nodes from different trees does not make sense.
268 The reality is different though :-)
269 Traversal of trees is a common operation, and it makes sense to optimize it.
270 In particular, the above code allocates and does atomic operations during a traversal.
272 To get rid of atomics, `rowan` uses non thread-safe `Rc`.
273 This is OK because trees traversals mostly (always, in case of rust-analyzer) run on a single thread. If you need to send a `SyntaxNode` to another thread, you can send a pair of **root**`GreenNode` (which is thread safe) and a `Range<usize>`.
274 The other thread can restore the `SyntaxNode` by traversing from the root green node and looking for a node with specified range.
275 You can also use the similar trick to store a `SyntaxNode`.
276 That is, a data structure that holds a `(GreenNode, Range<usize>)` will be `Sync`.
277 However rust-analyzer goes even further.
278 It treats trees as semi-transient and instead of storing a `GreenNode`, it generally stores just the id of the file from which the tree originated: `(FileId, Range<usize>)`.
279 The `SyntaxNode` is the restored by reparsing the file and traversing it from root.
280 With this trick, rust-analyzer holds only a small amount of trees in memory at the same time, which reduces memory usage.
282 Additionally, only the root `SyntaxNode` owns an `Arc` to the (root) `GreenNode`.
283 All other `SyntaxNode`s point to corresponding `GreenNode`s with a raw pointer.
284 They also point to the parent (and, consequently, to the root) with an owning `Rc`, so this is sound.
285 In other words, one needs *one* arc bump when initiating a traversal.
287 To get rid of allocations, `rowan` takes advantage of `SyntaxNode: !Sync` and uses a thread-local free list of `SyntaxNode`s.
288 In a typical traversal, you only directly hold a few `SyntaxNode`s at a time (and their ancestors indirectly), so a free list proportional to the depth of the tree removes all allocations in a typical case.
290 So, while traversal is not exactly incrementing a pointer, it's still pretty cheap: TLS + rc bump!
292 Traversal also yields (cheap) owned nodes, which improves ergonomics quite a bit.
294 #### Alternative Designs
296 ##### Memoized RedNodes
298 C# and Swift follow the design where the red nodes are memoized, which would look roughly like this in Rust:
301 type SyntaxNode = Arc<SyntaxData>;
305 parent: Option<SyntaxNode>,
306 green: Arc<GreeNode>,
307 children: Vec<OnceCell<SyntaxNode>>,
311 This allows using true pointer equality for comparison of identities of `SyntaxNodes`.
312 rust-analyzer used to have this design as well, but we've since switched to cursors.
313 The main problem with memoizing the red nodes is that it more than doubles the memory requirements for fully realized syntax trees.
314 In contrast, cursors generally retain only a path to the root.
315 C# combats increased memory usage by using weak references.
319 `GreenTree`s are untyped and homogeneous, because it makes accommodating error nodes, arbitrary whitespace and comments natural, and because it makes possible to write generic tree traversals.
320 However, when working with a specific node, like a function definition, one would want a strongly typed API.
322 This is what is provided by the AST layer. AST nodes are transparent wrappers over untyped syntax nodes:
326 fn cast(syntax: SyntaxNode) -> Option<Self>
330 fn syntax(&self) -> &SyntaxNode;
334 Concrete nodes are generated (there are 117 of them), and look roughly like this:
337 #[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
342 impl AstNode for FnDef {
343 fn cast(syntax: SyntaxNode) -> Option<Self> {
345 FN => Some(FnDef { syntax }),
349 fn syntax(&self) -> &SyntaxNode {
355 pub fn param_list(&self) -> Option<ParamList> {
356 self.syntax.children().find_map(ParamList::cast)
358 pub fn ret_type(&self) -> Option<RetType> {
359 self.syntax.children().find_map(RetType::cast)
361 pub fn body(&self) -> Option<BlockExpr> {
362 self.syntax.children().find_map(BlockExpr::cast)
368 Variants like expressions, patterns or items are modeled with `enum`s, which also implement `AstNode`:
371 #[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
374 TypeAliasDef(TypeAliasDef),
378 impl AstNode for AssocItem {
383 Shared AST substructures are modeled via (object safe) traits:
386 trait HasVisibility: AstNode {
387 fn visibility(&self) -> Option<Visibility>;
390 impl HasVisbility for FnDef {
391 fn visibility(&self) -> Option<Visibility> {
392 self.syntax.children().find_map(Visibility::cast)
399 * Like `SyntaxNode`s, AST nodes are cheap to clone pointer-sized owned values.
400 * All "fields" are optional, to accommodate incomplete and/or erroneous source code.
401 * It's always possible to go from an ast node to an untyped `SyntaxNode`.
402 * It's possible to go in the opposite direction with a checked cast.
403 * `enum`s allow modeling of arbitrary intersecting subsets of AST types.
404 * Most of rust-analyzer works with the ast layer, with notable exceptions of:
405 * macro expansion, which needs access to raw tokens and works with `SyntaxNode`s
406 * some IDE-specific features like syntax highlighting are more conveniently implemented over a homogeneous `SyntaxNode` tree
408 #### Alternative Designs
410 ##### Semantic Full AST
412 In IntelliJ the AST layer (dubbed **P**rogram **S**tructure **I**nterface) can have semantics attached, and is usually backed by either syntax tree, indices, or metadata from compiled libraries.
413 The backend for PSI can change dynamically.
415 ### Syntax Tree Recap
417 At its core, the syntax tree is a purely functional n-ary tree, which stores text at the leaf nodes and node "kinds" at all nodes.
418 A cursor layer is added on top, which gives owned, cheap to clone nodes with identity semantics, parent links and absolute offsets.
419 An AST layer is added on top, which reifies each node `Kind` as a separate Rust type with the corresponding API.
423 The (green) tree is constructed by a DFS "traversal" of the desired tree structure:
426 pub struct GreenNodeBuilder { ... }
428 impl GreenNodeBuilder {
429 pub fn new() -> GreenNodeBuilder { ... }
431 pub fn token(&mut self, kind: SyntaxKind, text: &str) { ... }
433 pub fn start_node(&mut self, kind: SyntaxKind) { ... }
434 pub fn finish_node(&mut self) { ... }
436 pub fn finish(self) -> GreenNode { ... }
440 The parser, ultimately, needs to invoke the `GreenNodeBuilder`.
441 There are two principal sources of inputs for the parser:
442 * source text, which contains trivia tokens (whitespace and comments)
443 * token trees from macros, which lack trivia
445 Additionally, input tokens do not correspond 1-to-1 with output tokens.
446 For example, two consecutive `>` tokens might be glued, by the parser, into a single `>>`.
448 For these reasons, the parser crate defines a callback interfaces for both input tokens and output trees.
449 The explicit glue layer then bridges various gaps.
451 The parser interface looks like this:
455 pub kind: SyntaxKind,
456 pub is_joined_to_next: bool,
459 pub trait TokenSource {
460 fn current(&self) -> Token;
461 fn lookahead_nth(&self, n: usize) -> Token;
462 fn is_keyword(&self, kw: &str) -> bool;
468 fn token(&mut self, kind: SyntaxKind, n_tokens: u8);
470 fn start_node(&mut self, kind: SyntaxKind);
471 fn finish_node(&mut self);
473 fn error(&mut self, error: ParseError);
477 token_source: &mut dyn TokenSource,
478 tree_sink: &mut dyn TreeSink,
484 * The parser and the syntax tree are independent, they live in different crates neither of which depends on the other.
485 * The parser doesn't know anything about textual contents of the tokens, with an isolated hack for checking contextual keywords.
486 * For gluing tokens, the `TreeSink::token` might advance further than one atomic token ahead.
488 ### Reporting Syntax Errors
490 Syntax errors are not stored directly in the tree.
491 The primary motivation for this is that syntax tree is not necessary produced by the parser, it may also be assembled manually from pieces (which happens all the time in refactorings).
492 Instead, parser reports errors to an error sink, which stores them in a `Vec`.
493 If possible, errors are not reported during parsing and are postponed for a separate validation step.
494 For example, parser accepts visibility modifiers on trait methods, but then a separate tree traversal flags all such visibilities as erroneous.
498 The primary difficulty with macros is that individual tokens have identities, which need to be preserved in the syntax tree for hygiene purposes.
499 This is handled by the `TreeSink` layer.
500 Specifically, `TreeSink` constructs the tree in lockstep with draining the original token stream.
501 In the process, it records which tokens of the tree correspond to which tokens of the input, by using text ranges to identify syntax tokens.
502 The end result is that parsing an expanded code yields a syntax tree and a mapping of text-ranges of the tree to original tokens.
504 To deal with precedence in cases like `$expr * 1`, we use special invisible parenthesis, which are explicitly handled by the parser
506 ### Whitespace & Comments
508 Parser does not see whitespace nodes.
509 Instead, they are attached to the tree in the `TreeSink` layer.
518 the comment will be (heuristically) made a child of function node.
520 ### Incremental Reparse
522 Green trees are cheap to modify, so incremental reparse works by patching a previous tree, without maintaining any additional state.
523 The reparse is based on heuristic: we try to contain a change to a single `{}` block, and reparse only this block.
524 To do this, we maintain the invariant that, even for invalid code, curly braces are always paired correctly.
526 In practice, incremental reparsing doesn't actually matter much for IDE use-cases, parsing from scratch seems to be fast enough.
528 ### Parsing Algorithm
530 We use a boring hand-crafted recursive descent + pratt combination, with a special effort of continuting the parsing if an error is detected.
534 Parser itself defines traits for token sequence input and syntax tree output.
535 It doesn't care about where the tokens come from, and how the resulting syntax tree looks like.