Conversation
|
Some changes occurred to the intrinsics. Make sure the CTFE / Miri interpreter cc @rust-lang/miri, @RalfJung, @oli-obk, @lcnr Some changes occurred to the CTFE machinery Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri interpreter cc @rust-lang/miri HIR ty lowering was modified cc @fmease |
|
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
fe3fa8b to
f5f42d1
Compare
|
Some changes occurred in src/tools/rustfmt cc @rust-lang/rustfmt Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy cc @rust-lang/clippy |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
| pub base: I::Ty, | ||
| pub ty: I::Ty, | ||
| pub variant: Option<I::Symbol>, | ||
| pub variant_idx: VariantIdx, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
VariantIdx/FieldIdx are embargoed here because rustc_abi is not considered ready for use on crates using stable features. However, rustc_index is. I would imagine that making a type level FieldIdx/VariantIdx is not a bad idea.
FieldInfo looks like it should belong to here.
72f9813 to
2c83a72
Compare
|
This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
Note
This is a rewrite of #146307 by using a lang item instead of a custom
TyKind. We still need ahir::TyKind::FieldOfvariant, because resolving the field name cannot be done before HIR construction. The advantage of doing it this way is that we don't need to make any changes to types after HIR (including symbol mangling). At the very beginning of this feature implementation, I tried to do it using a lang item, but then quickly abandoned the approach, because at that time I was still intending to support nested fields.Here is a range-diff between the two PRs
Add Field Representing Types (FRTs)
This PR implements the first step of the field projection lang experiment (Tracking Issue: #145383). Field representing types (FRTs) are a new kind of type. They can be named through the use of the
field_of!macro with the first argument being the type and the second the name of the field (or variant and field in the case of an enum). No nested fields are supported.FRTs natively implement the
Fieldtrait that's also added in this PR. It exposes information about the field such as the type of the field, the type of the base (i.e. the type that contains the field) and the offset within that base type. Only fields of non-packed structs are supported, fields of enums an unions have unique types for each field, but those do not implement theFieldtrait.This PR was created in collaboration with @dingxiangfei2009, it wouldn't have been possible without him, so huge thanks for mentoring me!
I updated my library solution for field projections to use the FRTs from
coreinstead of creating my own using the hash of the name of the field. See the Rust-for-Linux/field-projectionlang-experimentbranch.API added to
core::fieldAlong with a perma-unstable type that the compiler uses in the expansion of the macro:
Explanation of Field Representing Types (FRTs)
FRTs are used for compile-time & trait-level reflection for fields of structs & tuples. Each struct & tuple has a unique compiler-generated type nameable through the
field_of!macro. This type natively contains information about the field such as the outermost container, type of the field and its offset. Users may implement additional traits on these types in order to record custom information (for example a crate may define aPinnableFieldtrait that records whether the field is structurally pinned).They are the foundation of field projections, a general operation that's generic over the fields of a struct. This genericism needs to be expressible in the trait system. FRTs make this possible, since an operation generic over fields can just be a function with a generic parameter
F: Field.Note
The approach of field projections has changed considerably since this PR was opened. In the end we might not need FRTs, so this API is highly experimental.
FRTs should act as though they were defined as
struct MyStruct_my_field<StructGenerics>;next to the struct. So it should be local to the crate defining the struct so that one can implement any trait for the FRT from that crate. TheFieldtraits should be implemented by the compiler & populated with correct information (unsafecode needs to be able to rely on them being correct).TODOs
There are some
FIXME(FRTs)scattered around the code:field_of!can be improvedtests/ui/field_representing_types/nonexistent.rstests/ui/field_representing_types/non-struct.rstests/ui/field_representing_types/offset.rstests/ui/field_representing_types/not-field-if-packed.rstests/ui/field_representing_types/invalid.rscompiler/rustc_hir_analysis/src/hir_ty_lowering/mod.rsr? @oli-obk