Don't pass a break scope to Builder::break_for_else
#122137
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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 has assigned @matthewjasper. Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Some changes occurred in match lowering cc @Nadrieril |
|
Thanks. |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
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
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.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.