Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Don't pass a break scope to Builder::break_for_else #122137

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 8, 2024

Conversation

Zalathar
Copy link
Contributor

@Zalathar Zalathar commented Mar 7, 2024

This method would previously take a target scope, and then verify that it was equal to the scope on top of the if-then scope stack.

In practice, this means that callers have to go out of their way to pass around redundant scope information that's already on the if-then stack.

So it's easier to just retrieve the correct scope directly from the if-then stack, and simplify the other code that was passing it around.


Both ways of indicating the break target were introduced in #88572. I haven't been able to find any strong indication of whether this was done deliberately, or whether it was just an implementation artifact. But to me it doesn't seem useful to carefully pass around the same scope in two different ways.

This method would previously take a target scope, and then verify that it
was equal to the scope on top of the if-then scope stack.

In practice, this means that callers have to go out of their way to pass around
redundant scope information that's already on the if-then stack.

So it's easier to just retrieve the correct scope directly from the if-then
stack, and simplify the other code that was passing it around.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 7, 2024

r? @matthewjasper

rustbot has assigned @matthewjasper.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Mar 7, 2024
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 7, 2024

Some changes occurred in match lowering

cc @Nadrieril

@matthewjasper
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks.
@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 7, 2024

📌 Commit 570376c has been approved by matthewjasper

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Mar 7, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 7, 2024
…llaumeGomez

Rollup of 10 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#119888 (Stabilize the `#[diagnostic]` namespace and `#[diagnostic::on_unimplemented]` attribute)
 - rust-lang#121089 (Remove `feed_local_def_id`)
 - rust-lang#122004 (AST validation: Improve handling of inherent impls nested within functions and anon consts)
 - rust-lang#122087 (Add missing background color for top-level rust documentation page and increase contrast by setting text color to black)
 - rust-lang#122136 (Include all library files in artifact summary on CI)
 - rust-lang#122137 (Don't pass a break scope to `Builder::break_for_else`)
 - rust-lang#122138 (Record mtime in bootstrap's LLVM linker script)
 - rust-lang#122141 (sync (try_)instantiate_mir_and_normalize_erasing_regions implementation)
 - rust-lang#122142 (cleanup rustc_infer)
 - rust-lang#122147 (Make `std::os::unix::ucred` module private)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 57aea38 into rust-lang:master Mar 8, 2024
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.78.0 milestone Mar 8, 2024
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 8, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#122137 - Zalathar:if-break-scope, r=matthewjasper

Don't pass a break scope to `Builder::break_for_else`

This method would previously take a target scope, and then verify that it was equal to the scope on top of the if-then scope stack.

In practice, this means that callers have to go out of their way to pass around redundant scope information that's already on the if-then stack.

So it's easier to just retrieve the correct scope directly from the if-then stack, and simplify the other code that was passing it around.

---

Both ways of indicating the break target were introduced in rust-lang#88572. I haven't been able to find any strong indication of whether this was done deliberately, or whether it was just an implementation artifact. But to me it doesn't seem useful to carefully pass around the same scope in two different ways.
@Zalathar Zalathar deleted the if-break-scope branch March 8, 2024 01:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants