Rollup of 6 pull requests #40669
Closed
Rollup of 6 pull requests #40669
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
…uct field reordering.
Adds a test for issue rust-lang#31946 which was fixed a while ago.
HirId has a more stable representation than NodeId, meaning that modifications to one item don't influence (part of) the IDs within other items. The other part is a DefIndex for which there already is a way of stable hashing and persistence. This commit introduces the HirId type and generates a HirId for every NodeId during HIR lowering, but the resulting values are not yet used anywhere, except in consistency checks.
…[macro_reexport]`) and macros 2.0 exports (`pub use` macro re-exports and `pub macro` (once implemented) at the crate root.
This way we can have all item-likes occupy a dense range of DefIndexes, which is good for making fast, array-based dictionaries.
`sizeof` should be `size_of`
Implement optimization fuel and re-enable struct field reordering See [this discussion](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rolling-out-or-unrolling-struct-field-reorderings/4485) for background. This pull request adds two new compilation options: `-Z print-fuel=crate` prints the optimization fuel used by a crate and `-Z fuel=crate=n` sets the optimization fuel for a crate. It also turns field reordering back on. There is no way to test this feature without something consuming fuel. We can roll this back if we want, but then the optimization fuel bits will be dead code. The one notable absence from this PR is a test case. I'm not sure how to do one that's worth having. The only thing I can think of to test is `-Z fuel=foo=0`. The problem with other tests is that either (1) they're so big that future optimizations will apply, thus breaking them or (2) we don't know which order the optimizations will be applied in, so we can't guess the message that will be printed. If someone has a useful proposal for a good test, I certainly want to add one.
…orts, r=nrc Forbid conflicts between macros 1.0 exports and macros 2.0 exports This PR forbids for conflicts between `#[macro_export]`/`#[macro_reexport]` macro exports and `pub use` macro exports. For example, ```rust // crate A: pub use macros::foo; //^ This is allowed today, will be forbidden by this PR. // crate B: extern crate A; // This triggers a confusing error today. use A::foo; // This could refer to refer to either macro export in crate A. ``` r? @nrc
Introduce HirId, a replacement for ast::NodeId after lowering to HIR This is the first step towards implementing rust-lang#40303. This PR introduces the `HirId` type and generates a `HirId` for everything that would be assigned one (i.e. stuff in the HIR), but the HIR data types still use `NodeId` for now. Changing that is a big refactoring that I want to do in a separate PR. A `HirId` uniquely identifies a node in the HIR of the current crate. It is composed of the `owner`, which is the `DefIndex` of the directly enclosing `hir::Item`, `hir::TraitItem`, or `hir::ImplItem` (i.e. the closest "item-like"), and the `local_id` which is unique within the given owner. This PR is also running a number of consistency checks for the generated `HirId`s: - Does `NodeId` in the HIR have a corresponding `HirId`? - Is the `owner` part of each `HirId` consistent with its position in the HIR? - Do the numerical values of the `local_id` part all lie within a dense range of integers? cc @rust-lang/compiler r? @eddyb or @nikomatsakis
add test for nested macro def (rust-lang#31946) Adds a test for issue rust-lang#31946 which was fixed in 1.12.0. Closes rust-lang#31946.
Update gcc used for dist-x86-linux builds GCC 4.7 is too old to build LLVM 4.0, so this PR updates to 4.8. r? @alexcrichton (I'll ping you again once travis is green and the test commit is removed).
Fix typo in `ptr` doc `sizeof` should be `size_of`
|
@bors r+ p=10 |
|
📌 Commit a3ed87c has been approved by |
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @nrc (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
|
⌛ Testing commit a3ed87c with merge 1d90ca6... |
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
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.
ptrdoc #40667