This does not yet handle the case of mixed deref patterns with normal
constructors; it'll ICE in `Constructor::is_covered_by`. That'll be
fixed in a later commit.
compiletest: Do not require annotations on empty labels and suggestions
Unlike other empty diagnostics, empty labels (only underlining spans) and empty suggestions (suggestions to remove something) are quite usual and do not require any special attention and annotations.
This effectively reverts a part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139485.
r? `@jieyouxu`
This allows deref patterns to move out of boxes.
Implementation-wise, I've opted to put the information of whether a
deref pattern uses a built-in deref or a method call in the THIR. It'd
be a bit less code to check `.is_box()` everywhere, but I think this way
feels more robust (and we don't have a `mutability` field in the THIR
that we ignore when the smart pointer's a box). I'm not sure about the
naming (or using `ByRef`), though.
Since deref patterns on boxes will be lowered differently, I'll be
making a separate test file for them. This makes sure we're still
testing the generic `Deref(Mut)::deref(_mut)`-based lowering.
`deref_patterns`: support string and byte string literals in explicit `deref!("...")` patterns
When `deref_patterns` is enabled, this allows string literal patterns to be used where `str` is expected and byte string literal patterns to be used where `[u8]` or `[u8; N]` is expected. This lets them be used in explicit `deref!("...")` patterns to match on `String`, `Box<str>`, `Vec<u8>`, `Box<[u8;N]>`, etc. (as well as to match on slices and arrays obtained through other means). Implementation-wise, this follows up on #138992: similar to how byte string literals matching on `&[u8]` is implemented, this changes the type of the patterns as determined by HIR typeck, which informs const-to-pat on how to translate them to THIR (though strings needed a bit of extra work since we need references to call `<str as PartialEq>::eq` in the MIR lowering for string equality tests).
This PR does not add support for implicit deref pattern syntax (e.g. `"..."` matching on `String`, as `string_deref_patterns` allows). I have that implemented locally, but I'm saving it for a follow-up PR[^1].
This also does not add support for using named or associated constants of type `&str` where `str` is expected (nor likewise with named byte string constants). It'd be possible to add that if there's an appetite for it, but I figure it's simplest to start with literals.
This is gated by the `deref_patterns` feature since it's motivated by deref patterns. That said, its impact reaches outside of deref patterns; it may warrant a separate experiment and feature gate, particularly factoring in the follow-up[^1]. Even without deref patterns, I think there's probably motivation for these changes.
The update to the unstable book added by this will conflict with #140022, so they shouldn't be merged at the same time.
Tracking issue for deref patterns: #87121
r? ``@oli-obk``
cc ``@Nadrieril``
[^1]: The piece missing from this PR to support implicit deref pattern syntax is to allow string literal patterns to implicitly dereference their scrutinees before matching (see #44849). As a consequence, it also makes examples like the one in that issue work (though it's still gated by `deref_patterns`). I can provide more information on how I've implemented it or open a draft if it'd help in reviewing this PR.
Do not remove trivial `SwitchInt` in analysis MIR
This PR ensures that we don't prematurely remove trivial `SwitchInt` terminators which affects both the borrow-checking and runtime semantics (i.e. UB) of the code. Previously the `SimplifyCfg` optimization was removing `SwitchInt` terminators when they was "trivial", i.e. when all arms branched to the same basic block, even if that `SwitchInt` terminator had the side-effect of reading an operand which (for example) may not be initialized or may point to an invalid place in memory.
This behavior is unlike all other optimizations, which are only applied after "analysis" (i.e. borrow-checking) is finished, and which Miri disables to make sure the compiler doesn't silently remove UB.
Fixing this code "breaks" (i.e. unmasks) code that used to borrow-check but no longer does, like:
```rust
fn foo() {
let x;
let (0 | _) = x;
}
```
This match expression should perform a read because `_` does not shadow the `0` literal pattern, and the compiler should have to read the match scrutinee to compare it to 0. I've checked that this behavior does not actually manifest in practice via a crater run which came back clean: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139042#issuecomment-2767436367
As a side-note, it may be tempting to suggest that this is actually a good thing or that we should preserve this behavior. If we wanted to make this work (i.e. trivially optimize out reads from matches that are redundant like `0 | _`), then we should be enabling this behavior *after* fixing this. However, I think it's kinda unprincipled, and for example other variations of the code don't even work today, e.g.:
```rust
fn foo() {
let x;
let (0.. | _) = x;
}
```
deref patterns: implement implicit deref patterns
This implements implicit deref patterns (per https://hackmd.io/4qDDMcvyQ-GDB089IPcHGg#Implicit-deref-patterns) and adds tests and an unstable book chapter.
Best reviewed commit-by-commit. Overall there's a lot of additions, but a lot of that is tests, documentation, and simple(?) refactoring.
Tracking issue: #87121
r? ``@Nadrieril``
Stabilize `cfg_boolean_literals`
Closes#131204
`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated
This will end up conflicting with the test in #138293 so whichever doesn't land first will need updating
--
# Stabilization Report
## General design
### What is the RFC for this feature and what changes have occurred to the user-facing design since the RFC was finalized?
[RFC 3695](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3695), none.
### What behavior are we committing to that has been controversial? Summarize the major arguments pro/con.
None
### Are there extensions to this feature that remain unstable? How do we know that we are not accidentally committing to those?
None
## Has a call-for-testing period been conducted? If so, what feedback was received?
Yes; only positive feedback was received.
## Implementation quality
### Summarize the major parts of the implementation and provide links into the code (or to PRs)
Implemented in [#131034](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131034).
### Summarize existing test coverage of this feature
- [Basic usage, including `#[cfg()]`, `cfg!()` and `#[cfg_attr()]`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/true-false.rs)
- [`--cfg=true/false` on the command line being accessible via `r#true/r#false`](6d71251cf9/tests/ui/cfg/raw-true-false.rs)
- [Interaction with the unstable `#[doc(cfg(..))]` feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/rustdoc-ui/cfg-boolean-literal.rs)
- [Denying `--check-cfg=cfg(true/false)`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/6d71251/tests/ui/check-cfg/invalid-arguments.rs)
- Ensuring `--cfg false` on the command line doesn't change the meaning of `cfg(false)`: `tests/ui/cfg/cmdline-false.rs`
- Ensuring both `cfg(true)` and `cfg(false)` on the same item result in it being disabled: `tests/ui/cfg/both-true-false.rs`
### What outstanding bugs in the issue tracker involve this feature? Are they stabilization-blocking?
The above mentioned issue; it should not block as it interacts with another unstable feature.
### What FIXMEs are still in the code for that feature and why is it ok to leave them there?
None
### Summarize contributors to the feature by name for recognition and assuredness that people involved in the feature agree with stabilization
- `@clubby789` (RFC)
- `@Urgau` (Implementation in rustc)
### Which tools need to be adjusted to support this feature. Has this work been done?
`rustdoc`'s unstable`#[doc(cfg(..)]` has been updated to respect it. `cargo` has been updated with a forward compatibility lint to enable supporting it in cargo once stabilized.
## Type system and execution rules
### What updates are needed to the reference/specification? (link to PRs when they exist)
A few lines to be added to the reference for configuration predicates, specified in the RFC.
Implicit deref patterns allow previously ill-typed programs. Make sure
they're still ill-typed without the feature gate. I've thrown in a test
for `deref!(_)` too, though it seems it refers to `deref_patterns` as a
library feature.
The place previously used here was that of the temporary holding the
reference returned by `Deref::deref` or `DerefMut::deref_mut`. However,
since the inner pattern of `deref!(inner)` expects the deref-target type
itself, this would ICE when that type was inspected (e.g. by the EUV
case for slice patterns). This adds a deref projection to fix that.
Since current in-tree consumers of EUV (upvar inference and clippy)
don't care about Rvalues, the place could be simplified to
`self.cat_rvalue(pat.hir_id, self.pat_ty_adjusted(subpat)?)` to save
some cycles. I personally find EUV to be a bit fragile, so I've opted
for pedantic correctness. Maybe a `HACK` comment would suffice though?
```
error[E0614]: type `(..., ..., ..., ...)` cannot be dereferenced
--> $DIR/long-E0614.rs:10:5
|
LL | *x;
| ^^ can't be dereferenced
|
= note: the full name for the type has been written to '$TEST_BUILD_DIR/$FILE.long-type-hash.txt'
= note: consider using `--verbose` to print the full type name to the console
```
My reasoning: the ruleset implemented by the same feature gate in
Edition 2024 always tries to eat the inherited reference first. For
consistency, it makes sense to me to say across all editions that users
should consider the inherited reference's mutability when wondering if a
`&mut` pattern will type.
Pattern Migration 2024: fix incorrect messages/suggestions when errors arise in macro expansions
See the diff between the two commits for how this affected the error message and suggestion. In order to decide how to format those, the pattern migration diagnostic keeps track of which parts of the user's pattern cause problems in Edition 2024. However, it neglected to do some of this bookkeeping when pointing to macro expansion sites. This fixes that.
