compiler: rename BareFn to FnPtr
At some point "BareFn" was the chosen name for a "bare" function, without the niceties of `~fn`, `&fn`, or a few other ways of writing a function type. However, at some point the syntax for a "bare function" and any other function diverged even more. We started calling them what they are: function pointers, denoted by their own syntax.
However, we never changed the *internal* name for these, as this divergence was very gradual. Personally, I have repeatedly searched for "FnPtr" and gotten confused until I find the name is BareFn, only to forget this until the next time, since I don't routinely interact with the higher-level AST and HIR. But even tools that interact with these internal types only touch on them in a few places, making a migration easy enough. Let's use a more intuitive and obvious name, as this 12+ year old name has little to do with current Rust.
Fix some comments and related types and locals where it is obvious, e.g.
- bare_fn -> fn_ptr
- LifetimeBinderKind::BareFnType -> LifetimeBinderKind::FnPtrType
Co-authored-by: León Orell Valerian Liehr <me@fmease.dev>
Remove `ItemKind::descr` method
Follow-up of rust-lang/rust#143234.
After this PR is merged, it will remain two `descr` methods:
* `hir::GenericArg::descr`
* `hir::AssocItemConstraintKind::descr`
For both these enums, I don't think there is the right equivalent in `hir::DefKind` so unless I missed something, we can't remove these two methods because we can't convert these enums into `hir::DefKind`.
r? `@oli-obk`
Port `#[rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start/end]` to the new attrib…
Ports `rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_start` and `rustc_layout_scalar_valid_range_end` to the new attribute parsing infrastructure for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131229#issuecomment-2971353197
r? `@jdonszelmann`
Port `#[track_caller]` to the new attribute system
r? ``@oli-obk``
depends on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/142493Closesrust-lang/rust#142783
(didn't add a test for this, this situation should simply never come up again, the code was simply wrong. lmk if I should add it, but it won't test something very useful)
Add `#[loop_match]` for improved DFA codegen
tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132306
project goal: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-project-goals/issues/258
This PR adds the `#[loop_match]` attribute, which aims to improve code generation for state machines. For some (very exciting) benchmarks, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-project-goals/issues/258#issuecomment-2732965199
Currently, a very restricted syntax pattern is accepted. We'd like to get feedback and merge this now before we go too far in a direction that others have concerns with.
## current state
We accept code that looks like this
```rust
#[loop_match]
loop {
state = 'blk: {
match state {
State::A => {
#[const_continue]
break 'blk State::B
}
State::B => { /* ... */ }
/* ... */
}
}
}
```
- a loop should have the same semantics with and without `#[loop_match]`: normal `continue` and `break` continue to work
- `#[const_continue]` is only allowed in loops annotated with `#[loop_match]`
- the loop body needs to have this particular shape (a single assignment to the match scrutinee, with the body a labelled block containing just a match)
## future work
- perform const evaluation on the `break` value
- support more state/scrutinee types
## maybe future work
- allow `continue 'label value` syntax, which `#[const_continue]` could then use.
- allow the match to be on an arbitrary expression (e.g. `State::Initial`)
- attempt to also optimize `break`/`continue` expressions that are not marked with `#[const_continue]`
r? ``@traviscross``
