Add a method to dump MIR in the middle of MIR building
This makes it easier to debug issues with MIR building by inserting dump_for_debugging calls around the suspected code responsible for the bad MIR.
add a scope for `if let` guard temporaries and bindings
This fixes my concern with `if let` guard drop order, namely that the guard's bindings and temporaries were being dropped after their arm's pattern's bindings, instead of before (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/141295#issuecomment-2968975596). The guard's bindings and temporaries now live in a new scope, which extends until (but not past) the end of the arm, guaranteeing they're dropped before the arm's pattern's bindings.
This only introduces a new scope for match arms with guards. Perf results (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143376#issuecomment-3034922617) seemed to indicate there wasn't a significant hit to introduce a new scope on all match arms, but guard patterns (rust-lang/rust#129967) will likely benefit from only adding new scopes when necessary (with some patterns requiring multiple nested scopes).
Tracking issue for `if_let_guard`: rust-lang/rust#51114
Tests are adapted from examples by `@traviscross,` `@est31,` and myself on rust-lang/rust#141295.
coverage: Remove all unstable support for MC/DC instrumentation
Preliminary support for a partial implementation of “Modified Condition/Decision Coverage” instrumentation was added behind the unstable flag `-Zcoverage-options=mcdc` in 2024. These are the most substantial PRs involved:
- rust-lang/rust#123409
- rust-lang/rust#126733
At the time, I accepted these PRs with relatively modest scrutiny, because I did not want to stand in the way of independent work on MC/DC instrumentation. My hope was that ongoing work by interested contributors would lead to the code becoming clearer and more maintainable over time.
---
However, that MC/DC code has proven itself to be a major burden on overall maintenance of coverage instrumentation, and a major obstacle to other planned improvements, such as internal changes needed for proper support of macro expansion regions.
I have also become reluctant to accept any further MC/DC-related changes that would increase this burden.
That tension has resulted in an unhappy impasse. On one hand, the present MC/DC implementation is not yet complete, and shows little sign of being complete at an acceptable level of code quality in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, the continued existence of this partial MC/DC implementation is imposing serious maintenance burdens on every other aspect of coverage instrumentation, and is preventing some of the very improvements that would make it easier to accept expanded MC/DC support in the future.
While I know this will be disappointing to some, I think the healthy way forward is accept that I made the wrong call in accepting the current implementation, and to remove it entirely from the compiler.
lower pattern bindings in the order they're written and base drop order on primary bindings' order
To fixrust-lang/rust#142163, this PR does two things:
- Makes match arms base their drop order on the first sub-branch instead of the last sub-branch. Together with the second change, this makes bindings' drop order correspond to the relative order of when each binding first appears (i.e. the order of the "primary" bindings).
- Lowers pattern bindings in the order they're written (still treating the right-hand side of a ``@`` as coming before the binding on the left). In each sub-branch of a match arm, this is the order that would be obtained if the or-alternatives chosen in that sub-branch were inlined into the arm's pattern. This both affects drop order (making bindings in or-patterns not be dropped first) and fixes the issue in [this test](2a023bf80a/tests/ui/pattern/bindings-after-at/bind-by-copy-or-pat.rs) from rust-lang/rust#121716.
My approach to the second point is admittedly a bit trickier than may be necessary. To avoid passing around a counter when building `FlatPat`s, I've instead added just enough information to recover the original structure of the pattern's bindings from a `MatchTreeSubBranch`'s path through the `Candidate` tree. Some alternatives:
- We could use a counter, then sort bindings by their ordinals when making `MatchTreeSubBranch`es.
- I'd like to experiment with always merging sub-candidates and removing `test_remaining_match_pairs_after_or`; that would require lowering bindings and guards in a different way. That makes it a bigger change too, though, so I figure it might be simplest to start here.
- For a very big change, we could track which or-alternatives succeed at runtime to base drop order on the binding order in the particular alternatives matched.
This is a breaking change. It will need a crater run, language team sign-off, and likely updates to the Reference.
This will conflict with rust-lang/rust#143376 and probably also rust-lang/rust#143028, so they shouldn't be merged at the same time.
r? `@matthewjasper` or `@Nadrieril`
emit `StorageLive` and schedule `StorageDead` for `let`-`else`'s bindings after matching
This PR removes special handling of `let`-`else`, so that `StorageLive`s are emitted and `StorageDead`s are scheduled only after pattern-matching has succeeded. This means `StorageDead`s will no longer appear for all of its bindings on the `else` branch (because they're not live yet) and its drops&`StorageDead`s will happen together like they do elsewhere, rather than having all drops first, then all `StorageDead`s.
This fixesrust-lang/rust#142056, and is therefore a breaking change. I believe it'll need a crater run and a T-lang nomination/fcp thereafter. Specifically, this makes drop-checking slightly more restrictive for `let`-`else` to match the behavior of other variable binding forms. An alternative approach could be to change the relative order of drops and `StorageDead`s for other binding forms to make drop-checking more permissive, but making that consistent would be a significantly more involved change.
r? mir
cc `````@dingxiangfei2009`````
`````@rustbot````` label +T-lang +needs-crater
Improve formatting of doc code blocks
We don't currently apply automatic formatting to doc comment code blocks. As a
result, it has built up various idiosyncracies, which make such automatic
formatting difficult. Some of those idiosyncracies also make things harder for
human readers or other tools.
This PR makes a few improvements to doc code formatting, in the hopes of making
future automatic formatting easier, as well as in many cases providing net
readability improvements.
I would suggest reading each commit separately, as each commit contains one
class of changes.
Because doc code does not get automatically formatted, some doc code has
creative placements of comments that automatic formatting can't handle.
Reformat those comments to make the resulting code support standard Rust
formatting without breaking; this is generally an improvement to
readability as well.
Some comments are not indented to the prevailing indent, and are instead
aligned under some bit of code. Indent them to the prevailing indent,
and put spaces *inside* the comments to align them with code.
Some comments span several lines of code (which aren't the line the
comment is about) and expect alignment. Reformat them into one comment
not broken up by unrelated intervening code.
Some comments are placed on the same line as an opening brace, placing
them effectively inside the subsequent block, such that formatting would
typically format them like a line of that block. Move those comments to
attach them to what they apply to.
Some comments are placed on the same line as a one-line braced block,
effectively attaching them to the closing brace, even though they're
about the code inside the block. Reformat to make sure the comment will
stay on the same line as the code it's commenting.
MIR-build: No longer emit assumes in enum-as casting
This just uses the `valid_range` from the backend, so it's duplicating the range metadata that now we include on parameters and loads, and thus no longer seems to be useful -- notably there's no codegen test failures from removing it.
(Because it's using data from the same source as the backend annotations, it doesn't do anything to mitigate things like rust-lang/rust#144388 where the range in the layout is more permissive than the actual possible discriminants. A variant of this that actually checked the discriminants more specifically might be useful, so could potentially be added in future, but I don't think the *current* checks are actually providing value.)
r? mir
Randomly turns out that this
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121097
