Auto merge of #88272 - willcrichton:mutable-sparse-matrix, r=ecstatic-morse
Add bit removal methods to SparseBitMatrix and factor *BitSet relational methods into more extensible trait
I need the ability to clear the bits out of a row from `SparseBitMatrix`. Currently, all the mutating methods only allow insertion of bits, and there is no way to get access to the underlying data.
One approach is simply to make `ensure_row` public, since it grants `&mut` access to the underlying `HybridBitSet`. This PR adds the `pub` modifier. However, presumably this method was private for a reason, so I'm open to other designs. I would prefer general mutable access to the rows, because that way I can add many mutating operations (`clear`, `intersect`, etc.) without filing a PR each time :-)
Auto merge of #87688 - camsteffen:let-else, r=cjgillot
Introduce `let...else`
Tracking issue: #87335
The trickiest part for me was enforcing the diverging else block with clear diagnostics. Perhaps the obvious solution is to expand to `let _: ! = ..`, but I decided against this because, when a "mismatched type" error is found in typeck, there is no way to trace where in the HIR the expected type originated, AFAICT. In order to pass down this information, I believe we should introduce `Expectation::LetElseNever(HirId)` or maybe add `HirId` to `Expectation::HasType`, but I left that as a future enhancement. For now, I simply assert that the block is `!` with a custom `ObligationCauseCode`, and I think this is clear enough, at least to start. The downside here is that the error points at the entire block rather than the specific expression with the wrong type. I left a todo to this effect.
Overall, I believe this PR is feature-complete with regard to the RFC.
bors [Tue, 31 Aug 2021 22:15:26 +0000 (22:15 +0000)]
Auto merge of #88533 - oli-obk:tait_🧊, r=spastorino
Concrete regions can show up in mir borrowck if the originated from there
We used to not encounter them here, because we took regions from typeck's opaque type resolution by renumbering them. We don't do that anymore. Instead mir borrock does all the logic, and it can handle concrete regions just fine, as long as it created them itself.
Mara Bos [Tue, 31 Aug 2021 15:54:57 +0000 (17:54 +0200)]
Rollup merge of #88445 - inquisitivecrystal:ast-lowering, r=cjgillot
Clean up the lowering of AST items
This PR simplifies and improves `rustc_ast_lowering::item` in various minor ways. The reasons for the changes should mostly be self evident, though I'm happy to specifically explain anything if needed.
These changes used to be part of #88019, but I removed them after it was pointed out that some of my other changes to `rustc_ast_lowering` were unnecessary. It felt like a bad idea to clean up code which I didn't even need to touch anymore.
Mara Bos [Tue, 31 Aug 2021 15:54:52 +0000 (17:54 +0200)]
Rollup merge of #85017 - clarfonthey:carrying_widening, r=m-ou-se
Add carrying_add, borrowing_sub, widening_mul, carrying_mul methods to integers
This comes in part from my own attempts to make (crude) big integer implementations, and also due to the stalled discussion in [RFC 2417](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2417). My understanding is that changes like these are best offered directly as code and then an RFC can be opened if there needs to be more discussion before stabilisation. Since all of these methods are unstable from the start, I figured I might as well offer them now.
I tried looking into intrinsics, messed around with a few different implementations, and ultimately concluded that these are "good enough" implementations for now to at least put up some code and maybe start bikeshedding on a proper API for these.
For the `carrying_add` and `borrowing_sub`, I tried looking into potential architecture-specific code and realised that even using the LLVM intrinsics for `addcarry` and `subborrow` on x86 specifically, I was getting exactly the same assembly as the naive implementation using `overflowing_add` and `overflowing_sub`, although the LLVM IR did differ because of the architecture-specific code. Longer-term I think that they would be best suited to specific intrinsics as that would make optimisations easier (instructions like add-carry tend to use implicit flags, and thus can only be optimised if they're done one-after-another, and thus it would make the most sense to have compact intrinsics that can be merged together easily).
For `widening_mul` and `carrying_mul`, for now at least, I simply cast to the larger type and perform arithmetic that way, since we currently have no intrinsic that would work better for 128-bit integers. In the future, I also think that some form of intrinsic would work best to cover that case, but for now at least, I think that they're "good enough" for now.
The main reasoning for offering these directly to the standard library even though they're relatively niche optimisations is to help ensure that the code generated for them is optimal. Plus, these operations alone aren't enough to create big integer implementations, although they could help simplify the code required to do so and make it a bit more accessible for the average implementor.
That said, I 100% understand if any or all of these methods are not desired simply because of how niche they are. Up to you. 🤷🏻
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/88475, a situation was found where `[T; N].into_iter()` becomes *ambiguous* in the new edition. This is different than the case where `(&[T; N]).into_iter()` resolves differently, which was the only case handled by the `array_into_iter` lint. This is almost identical to the new-traits-in-the-prelude problem. Effectively, due to the array-into-iter hack disappearing in Rust 2021, we effectively added `IntoIterator` to the 'prelude' in Rust 2021 specifically for arrays.
This modifies the prelude collisions lint to detect that case and emit a `array_into_iter` lint in that case.
bors [Tue, 31 Aug 2021 03:34:22 +0000 (03:34 +0000)]
Auto merge of #88414 - Aaron1011:guess-foreign-head-span, r=estebank
Don't use `guess_head_span` in `predicates_of` for foreign span
Previously, the result of `predicates_of` for a foreign trait
would depend on the *current* state of the corresponding source
file in the foreign crate. This could lead to ICEs during incremental
compilation, since the on-disk contents of the upstream source file
could potentially change without the upstream crate being recompiled.
Additionally, this ensure that that the metadata we produce for a crate
only depends on its *compiled* upstream dependencies (e.g an rlib or
rmeta file), *not* the current on-disk state of the upstream crate
source files.
bors [Mon, 30 Aug 2021 22:21:01 +0000 (22:21 +0000)]
Auto merge of #88369 - lcnr:cec-rename, r=oli-obk
update const generics feature gates
**tl;dr: split const generics into three features: `adt_const_params`, `const_generics_defaults` and `generic_const_exprs`**
continuing the work of `@BoxyUwU` in #88324, this PR
- renames `feature(const_evaluatable_checked)` to `feature(generic_const_exprs)` which now doesn't need any other feature gate to work. Previously `feature(const_evaluatable_checked)` was only useful in combination with `feature(const_generics)`.
- completely removes `feature(lazy_normalization_consts)`. This feature only supplied the parents generics to anonymous constants, which is pretty useless as generic anon consts are only allowed with `feature(generic_const_exprs)` anyways.
- moves the ability to use additional const param types from `feature(const_generics)` into `feature(adt_const_params)`. As `feature(const_generics)` is now mostly useless without `feature(generic_const_exprs)` we also remove that feature flag.
- updates tests, removing duplicates and unnecessary revisions in some cases and also deletes all unused `*.stderr` files.
I not also remove the ordering restriction for const and type parameters if any of the three const generics features is active.
This ordering restriction feels like the only "real" use of the current `feature(const_generics)` right now so this change isn't a perfect solution, but as I intend to stabilize the ordering - and `feature(const_generics_defaults)` - in the very near future, I think this is acceptable for now.
---
cc `@rust-lang/project-const-generics` about the new feature names and this change in general.
I don't think we need any external approval for this change but I do intend to publish an update to the const generics tracking issue the day this PR lands, so I don't want this merged yet.
Apologies to whoever ends up reviewing this PR :sweat_smile: :heart:
bors [Mon, 30 Aug 2021 05:23:54 +0000 (05:23 +0000)]
Auto merge of #88456 - inquisitivecrystal:private-macro, r=jyn514
Fix: don't document private macros by default
As part of #88019, I made it so private macros are documented in `--document-private-items` mode. Unfortunately, it appears that I also accidentally made them be documented when *not* in `--document-private-items` mode. This PR fixes that and adds a regression test.
r? `@jyn514` (I hope you don't mind that I keep sending PRs your way)
Noah Lev [Mon, 30 Aug 2021 02:02:47 +0000 (19:02 -0700)]
Retrieve `DefKind` from HIR map to reduce chance of cycles
`tcx.def_kind()` could theoretically invoke another query, which could
cause an infinite query loop. Accessing the HIR map directly makes that
less likely to happen.
I also changed it to use `as_local()` (`tcx.def_kind()` seems to
implicitly call `expect_local()`) and `opt_def_kind()` to reduce the
chance of panicking on valid code.
bors [Sun, 29 Aug 2021 22:54:26 +0000 (22:54 +0000)]
Auto merge of #88337 - eddyb:field-failure-is-not-an-option, r=nagisa
rustc_target: `TyAndLayout::field` should never error.
This refactor (making `TyAndLayout::field` return `TyAndLayout` without any `Result` around it) is based on a simple observation, regarding `TyAndLayout::field`:
If `cx.layout_of(ty)` succeeds (for some `cx` and `ty`), then `.field(cx, i)` on the resulting `TyAndLayout` should *always* succeed in computing `cx.layout_of(field_ty)` (where `field_ty` is the type of the `i`th field of `ty`).
The reason for this is that no matter which field is chosen, `cx.layout_of(field_ty)` *will have already been computed*, as part of computing `cx.layout_of(ty)`, as we cannot determine the layout of *any* type without considering the layouts of *all* of its fields.
And so it should be fine to turn any errors into ICEs, since they likely indicate a `cx` mismatch, or some other edge case that is due to a compiler bug (as opposed to ever being an user-facing error).
<hr/>
Each commit should probably be reviewed separately, though note that there's some `where` clauses (in `rustc_target::abi::call::*`) that change in most commits.
bors [Sun, 29 Aug 2021 20:27:14 +0000 (20:27 +0000)]
Auto merge of #88280 - sexxi-goose:non-exhaustive, r=nikomatsakis
Handle match statements with non exhaustive variants in closures
This PR ensures that the behavior for match statements with non exhaustive variants is the same inside and outside closures.
If we have a non-exhaustive SingleVariant which is defined in a different crate, then we should handle the case the same way we would handle a MultiVariant: borrow the match discriminant.
projects / rust.git / log