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

Rollup of 16 pull requests #129802

Closed
wants to merge 41 commits into from

Conversation

workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

aDotInTheVoid and others added 30 commits August 15, 2024 13:07
The test code did have an inference failure, but that would have failed
on Rust 1.79 and earlier too. Now it is rewritten to be specifically
affected by 1.80's `impl FromIterator<_> for Box<str>`.
This keeps it up-to-date by moving from 0.5.6 to 0.5.7. While here I've
additionally updated some other wasm-related dependencies in the
workspace to keep them up-to-date and try to avoid duplicate versions as
well.
Several compiler functions have `Option<!>` for their return type.
That's odd. The only valid return value is `None`, so why is this type
used?

Because it lets you write certain patterns slightly more concisely. E.g.
if you have these common patterns:
```
    let Some(a) = f() else { return };
    let Ok(b) = g() else { return };
```
you can shorten them to these:
```
    let a = f()?;
    let b = g().ok()?;
```
Huh.

An `Option` return type typically designates success/failure. How should
I interpret the type signature of a function that always returns (i.e.
doesn't panic), does useful work (modifying `&mut` arguments), and yet
only ever fails? This idiom subverts the type system for a cute
syntactic trick.

Furthermore, returning `Option<!>` from a function F makes things
syntactically more convenient within F, but makes things worse at F's
callsites. The callsites can themselves use `?` with F but should not,
because they will get an unconditional early return, which is almost
certainly not desirable. Instead the return value should be ignored.
(Note that some of callsites of `process_operand`, `process_immedate`,
`process_assign` actually do use `?`, though the early return doesn't
matter in these cases because nothing of significance comes after those
calls. Ugh.)

When I first saw this pattern I had no idea how to interpret it, and it
took me several minutes of close reading to understand everything I've
written above. I even started a Zulip thread about it to make sure I
understood it properly. "Save a few characters by introducing types so
weird that compiler devs have to discuss it on Zulip" feels like a bad
trade-off to me. This commit replaces all the `Option<!>` return values
and uses `else`/`return` (or something similar) to replace the relevant
`?` uses. The result is slightly more verbose but much easier to
understand.
…=fmease

rustdoc-json: Add test for `Self` type

Inspired by rust-lang#128471, the rustdoc-json suite had no tests in place for the `Self` type. This PR adds one.

I've also manually checked locally that this test passes on 29e9248, confirming that adding `clean::Type::SelfTy` didn't change the JSON output. (potentially adding a self type to json (insead of (ab)using generic) is tracked in rust-lang#128522)

Updates rust-lang#81359

r? `````@fmease`````
…d, r=workingjubilee

allow BufReader::peek to be called on unsized types

rust-lang#128405
…r=fmease

Deny imports of `rustc_type_ir::inherent` outside of type ir + new trait solver

We shouldn't encourage using `rustc_type_ir::inherent` outside of the new solver[^1], though this can happen by accident due to rust-analyzer, for example. See rust-lang#127537 (comment) for an example in practice.

r? fmease

[^1]: Unless we go the fully radical approach of always using these inherent methods everywhere in favor of inherent methods, which would be a major overhaul of the compiler, IMO. I don't really want to consider that possibility right now, tho.
…r=lcnr

Simplify some extern providers

Simplifies some extern crate providers:
1. Generalize the `ProcessQueryValue` identity impl to work on non-`Option` types.
2. Allow `ProcessQueryValue` to wrap its output in an `EarlyBinder`, to simplify `explicit_item_bounds`/`explicit_item_super_predicates`.
3. Use `{ table }` and friends more when possible.
…-dead

Remove `Option<!>` return types.

Several compiler functions have `Option<!>` for their return type. That's odd. The only valid return value is `None`, so why is this type used?

Because it lets you write certain patterns slightly more concisely. E.g. if you have these common patterns:
```
    let Some(a) = f() else { return };
    let Ok(b) = g() else { return };
```
you can shorten them to these:
```
    let a = f()?;
    let b = g().ok()?;
```
Huh.

An `Option` return type typically designates success/failure. How should I interpret the type signature of a function that always returns (i.e. doesn't panic), does useful work (modifying `&mut` arguments), and yet only ever fails? This idiom subverts the type system for a cute syntactic trick.

Furthermore, returning `Option<!>` from a function F makes things syntactically more convenient within F, but makes things worse at F's callsites. The callsites can themselves use `?` with F but should not, because they will get an unconditional early return, which is almost certainly not desirable. Instead the return value should be ignored. (Note that some of callsites of `process_operand`, `process_immedate`, `process_assign` actually do use `?`, though the early return doesn't matter in these cases because nothing of significance comes after those calls. Ugh.)

When I first saw this pattern I had no idea how to interpret it, and it took me several minutes of close reading to understand everything I've written above. I even started a Zulip thread about it to make sure I understood it properly. "Save a few characters by introducing types so weird that compiler devs have to discuss it on Zulip" feels like a bad trade-off to me. This commit replaces all the `Option<!>` return values and uses `else`/`return` (or something similar) to replace the relevant `?` uses. The result is slightly more verbose but much easier to understand.

r? ```@cjgillot```
…ngjubilee

f32 docs: define 'arithmetic' operations

r? `@workingjubilee`
Fixes rust-lang#129699
llvm-wrapper: adapt for LLVM API changes

No functional changes intended.

Updates the wrapper for 5c4lar/llvm-project@21eddfa.

`@rustbot` label: +llvm-main
r? `@nikic`
…ler-errors

Add a test for trait solver overflow in MIR inliner cycle detection

This test is a combination of the reproducer posted here: rust-lang#128887 (comment) and the existing test for polymorphic recursion: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/784d444733d65c3d305ce5edcbb41e3d0d0aee2e/tests/mir-opt/inline/polymorphic_recursion.rs

r? `@compiler-errors`
Make the "detect-old-time" UI test more representative

The test code did have an inference failure, but that would have failed
on Rust 1.79 and earlier too. Now it is rewritten to be specifically
affected by 1.80's `impl FromIterator<_> for Box<str>`.
…-ld, r=jieyouxu

Update the `wasm-component-ld` binary dependency

This keeps it up-to-date by moving from 0.5.6 to 0.5.7. While here I've additionally updated some other wasm-related dependencies in the workspace to keep them up-to-date and try to avoid duplicate versions as well.
…g-4, r=jieyouxu

Remove `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing`, round 4

Because explicit importing of macros via use items is nicer (more standard and readable) than implicit importing via #[macro_use]. Continuing the work from rust-lang#124511, rust-lang#124914, and rust-lang#125434. After this PR no `rustc_*` crates use `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing` except for `rustc_codegen_gcc` which is a special case and I will do separately.

r? `@jieyouxu`
…g-remainder, r=GuillaumeGomez

Remove `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing` from rustdoc and rustfmt

A follow-up to rust-lang#129767 and earlier PRs doing this for `rustc_*` crates.

r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
add crashtests for several old unfixed ICEs

Adds several new crashtests for some older ICEs that did not yet have any.
Tests were added for rust-lang#128097, rust-lang#119095, rust-lang#117460 and rust-lang#126443.
couple more crash tests

r? `@jieyouxu`
mark joboet as on vacation

I'll be on vacation for about three weeks and won't have much time for reviewing.

r? `@ghost`
@rustbot rustbot added A-meta Area: Issues & PRs about the rust-lang/rust repository itself A-run-make Area: port run-make Makefiles to rmake.rs A-rustdoc-json Area: Rustdoc JSON backend 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. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver) rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Aug 31, 2024
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=16

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 31, 2024

📌 Commit a06e44b has been approved by workingjubilee

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 31, 2024

🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 100. This pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened.

@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 Aug 31, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 31, 2024

⌛ Testing commit a06e44b with merge d186e16...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 31, 2024
…kingjubilee

Rollup of 16 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#129123 (rustdoc-json: Add test for `Self` type)
 - rust-lang#129675 (allow BufReader::peek to be called on unsized types)
 - rust-lang#129678 (Deny imports of `rustc_type_ir::inherent` outside of type ir + new trait solver)
 - rust-lang#129723 (Simplify some extern providers)
 - rust-lang#129724 (Remove `Option<!>` return types.)
 - rust-lang#129725 (Stop using `ty::GenericPredicates` for non-predicates_of queries)
 - rust-lang#129730 (f32 docs: define 'arithmetic' operations)
 - rust-lang#129749 (llvm-wrapper: adapt for LLVM API changes)
 - rust-lang#129757 (Add a test for trait solver overflow in MIR inliner cycle detection)
 - rust-lang#129760 (Make the "detect-old-time" UI test more representative)
 - rust-lang#129762 (Update the `wasm-component-ld` binary dependency)
 - rust-lang#129767 (Remove `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing`, round 4)
 - rust-lang#129774 (Remove `#[macro_use] extern crate tracing` from rustdoc and rustfmt)
 - rust-lang#129780 (add crashtests for several old unfixed ICEs)
 - rust-lang#129782 (couple more crash tests)
 - rust-lang#129791 (mark joboet as on vacation)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

The job x86_64-gnu-llvm-17 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
---- [ui] tests/ui-fulldeps/internal-lints/import-of-type-ir-inherent.rs stdout ----

error: ui test compiled successfully!
status: exit status: 0
command: env -u RUSTC_LOG_COLOR RUSTC_ICE="0" RUST_BACKTRACE="short" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage0/bin/rustc" "/checkout/tests/ui-fulldeps/internal-lints/import-of-type-ir-inherent.rs" "-Zthreads=1" "-Zsimulate-remapped-rust-src-base=/rustc/FAKE_PREFIX" "-Ztranslate-remapped-path-to-local-path=no" "-Z" "ignore-directory-in-diagnostics-source-blocks=/cargo" "-Z" "ignore-directory-in-diagnostics-source-blocks=/checkout/vendor" "--sysroot" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage0-sysroot" "--target=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" "--check-cfg" "cfg(FALSE)" "--error-format" "json" "--json" "future-incompat" "-Ccodegen-units=1" "-Zui-testing" "-Zdeduplicate-diagnostics=no" "-Zwrite-long-types-to-disk=no" "-Cstrip=debuginfo" "--emit" "metadata" "-C" "prefer-dynamic" "--out-dir" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui-fulldeps/internal-lints/import-of-type-ir-inherent" "-A" "unused" "-A" "internal_features" "-Crpath" "-Cdebuginfo=0" "-Lnative=/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/native/rust-test-helpers" "-L" "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/ui-fulldeps/internal-lints/import-of-type-ir-inherent/auxiliary" "-Z" "unstable-options"
--- stderr -------------------------------
warning: unknown lint: `rustc::usage_of_type_ir_inherent`
##[warning]  --> /checkout/tests/ui-fulldeps/internal-lints/import-of-type-ir-inherent.rs:3:9
   |

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-meta Area: Issues & PRs about the rust-lang/rust repository itself A-run-make Area: port run-make Makefiles to rmake.rs A-rustdoc-json Area: Rustdoc JSON backend rollup A PR which is a rollup 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. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. WG-trait-system-refactor The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.