`hir`: Add `Become` expression kind (explicit tail calls experiment)
This adds `hir::ExprKind::Become` alongside ast lowering. During hir-thir lowering we currently lower `become` as `return`, so that we can partially test `become` without ICEing.
cc `@scottmcm`
r? `@Nilstrieb`
Syntactically accept `become` expressions (explicit tail calls experiment)
This adds `ast::ExprKind::Become`, implements parsing and properly gates the feature.
cc `@scottmcm`
Add a fully fledged `Clause` type, rename old `Clause` to `ClauseKind`
Does two basic things before I put up a more delicate set of PRs (along the lines of #112714, but hopefully much cleaner) that migrate existing usages of `ty::Predicate` to `ty::Clause` (`predicates_of`/`item_bounds`/`ParamEnv::caller_bounds`).
1. Rename `Clause` to `ClauseKind`, so it's parallel with `PredicateKind`.
2. Add a new `Clause` type which is parallel to `Predicate`.
* This type exposes `Clause::kind(self) -> Binder<'tcx, ClauseKind<'tcx>>` which is parallel to `Predicate::kind` 😸
The new `Clause` type essentially acts as a newtype wrapper around `Predicate` that asserts that it is specifically a `PredicateKind::Clause`. Turns out from experimentation[^1] that this is not negative performance-wise, which is wonderful, since this a much simpler design than something that requires encoding the discriminant into the alignment bits of a predicate kind, or something else like that...
r? ``@lcnr`` or ``@oli-obk``
[^1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112714#issuecomment-1595653910
Each of `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}` has a comment:
```
// FIXME(davidtwco): can a `Cow<'static, str>` be used here?
```
This commit answers that question in the affirmative. It's not the most
compelling change ever, but it might be worth merging.
This requires changing the `impl<'a> From<&'a str>` impls to `impl
From<&'static str>`, which involves a bunch of knock-on changes that
require/result in call sites being a little more precise about exactly
what kind of string they use to create errors, and not just `&str`. This
will result in fewer unnecessary allocations, though this will not have
any notable perf effects given that these are error paths.
Note that I was lazy within Clippy, using `to_string` in a few places to
preserve the existing string imprecision. I could have used `impl
Into<{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage>` in various places as is done in the
compiler, but that would have required changes to *many* call sites
(mostly changing `&format("...")` to `format!("...")`) which didn't seem
worthwhile.
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
Switch to `EarlyBinder` for `explicit_item_bounds`
Part of the work to finish https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/105779.
This PR adds `EarlyBinder` to the return type of the `explicit_item_bounds` query and removes `bound_explicit_item_bounds`.
r? `@compiler-errors` (hope it's okay to request you, since you reviewed #110299 and #110498😃)
Add offset_of! macro (RFC 3308)
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3308 (tracking issue #106655) by adding the built in macro `core::mem::offset_of`. Two of the future possibilities are also implemented:
* Nested field accesses (without array indexing)
* DST support (for `Sized` fields)
I wrote this a few months ago, before the RFC merged. Now that it's merged, I decided to rebase and finish it.
cc `@thomcc` (RFC author)
Make elaboration generic over input
Combines all the `elaborate_*` family of functions into just one, which is an iterator over the same type that you pass in (e.g. elaborating `Predicate` gives `Predicate`s, elaborating `Obligation`s gives `Obligation`s, etc.)
Initial support for return type notation (RTN)
See: https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2023/02/13/return-type-notation-send-bounds-part-2/
1. Only supports `T: Trait<method(): Send>` style bounds, not `<T as Trait>::method(): Send`. Checking validity and injecting an implicit binder for all of the late-bound method generics is harder to do for the latter.
* I'd add this in a follow-up.
3. ~Doesn't support RTN in general type position, i.e. no `let x: <T as Trait>::method() = ...`~
* I don't think we actually want this.
5. Doesn't add syntax for "eliding" the function args -- i.e. for now, we write `method(): Send` instead of `method(..): Send`.
* May be a hazard if we try to add it in the future. I'll probably add it in a follow-up later, with a structured suggestion to change `method()` to `method(..)` once we add it.
7. ~I'm not in love with the feature gate name 😺~
* I renamed it to `return_type_notation` ✔️
Follow-up PRs will probably add support for `where T::method(): Send` bounds. I'm not sure if we ever want to support return-type-notation in arbitrary type positions. I may also make the bounds require `..` in the args list later.
r? `@ghost`
