-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Generate builtin impls for Clone
#43690
Conversation
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @eddyb (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 Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed.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. |
IMO it does need an RFC and I am against this specific implementation atm, although I am pleasantly surprised it's possible at all. There might be some value to moving all builtin auto-derives to MIR. cc @rust-lang/lang @rust-lang/compiler |
What's your problem with the implementation? I think it's pretty clean. However, we are probably not going to merge this at least before @nikomatsakis returns from vacation next week. |
src/librustc_trans/monomorphize.rs
Outdated
@@ -143,6 +143,12 @@ fn resolve_associated_item<'a, 'tcx>( | |||
substs: rcvr_substs | |||
} | |||
} | |||
traits::VtableBuiltin(ref data) => { | |||
Instance { | |||
def: ty::InstanceDef::BuiltinShim(def_id, data.ty), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You don't need to store ty
anywhere - it is available as trait_ref.self_ty()
.
@arielb1 My problem is not how it's implemented, but using this method only for some |
Because that would mean the code is "tested" more? I'm not so sure on that - it e.g. means we'll have to re-implement error reporting on |
src/librustc/ty/instance.rs
Outdated
DropGlue(DefId, Option<Ty<'tcx>>), | ||
|
||
/// Builtin method implementation, e.g. `Clone::clone`. | ||
BuiltinShim(DefId, Ty<'tcx>), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can't this be CloneShim
? In other places I have a separate shim class for each trait.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems fine, I'll change that.
src/librustc_mir/shim.rs
Outdated
/// Build a `Clone::clone` shim for `recvr_ty`. Here, `def_id` is `Clone::clone`. | ||
fn build_clone_shim<'a, 'tcx>(tcx: ty::TyCtxt<'a, 'tcx, 'tcx>, | ||
def_id: DefId, | ||
rcvr_ty: ty::Ty<'tcx>) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
don't call this rcvr_ty
- ty
is fine. The receiver is the first argument of the method, which has type &Self
(e.g. &[Vec<u32>; 2]
if the impl is for <[Vec<u32>; 2] as Clone>
. Also fix the comment.
src/librustc_mir/shim.rs
Outdated
/// Build a `Clone::clone` shim for `recvr_ty`. Here, `def_id` is `Clone::clone`. | ||
fn build_clone_shim<'a, 'tcx>(tcx: ty::TyCtxt<'a, 'tcx, 'tcx>, | ||
def_id: DefId, | ||
rcvr_ty: ty::Ty<'tcx>) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
don't call this rcvr_ty
- ty
is fine. The receiver is the first argument of the method, which has type &Self
(e.g. &[Vec<u32>; 2]
if the impl is for <[Vec<u32>; 2] as Clone>
. Also fix the comment above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually there are too many variables named ty
appearing in the code, and I ended up confusing two of them (and having a wrong code generation), that's why I renamed it but I agree rcvr_ty
is not ideal, I'll find something else.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is self_ty
fine?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yup self_ty
would be fine.
src/librustc_mir/shim.rs
Outdated
rcvr_ty: ty::Ty<'tcx>) | ||
-> Mir<'tcx> | ||
{ | ||
let sig = tcx.fn_sig(def_id); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Small note: this is a "fully generic" shim, so it knows the concrete receiver type. You could check if the source type is Copy and emit an "optimized" impl that just copies the result. This will speed up cloning [u8; 1048576]
on unoptimized builds and is generally a good idea.
Also, as @eddyb says, it might be a smart idea to plumb #[derive(Clone)]
impls through this to avoid implementing the logic twice and to potentially speed up compilation - maybe have #[derive(Clone)]
add a #[is_builtin_clone]
attribute to the method? I'm not sure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@arielb1 how would we handle bounds checking? #[derive(Clone)]
currently uses local variables of type AssertParamIsClone<T: Clone + ?Sized>
for each field type T
in order to deal with recursive types. This would not be applicable here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually since we are "fully generic" here as you said, we would could indeed check by hand that the bounds hold for each field type when building the shim.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
About plumbing #[derive(Clone)]
- we want to give an error on the generic types, before monomorphization, so we can't use this function. So we need a separate checking function - maybe that is not a good idea after all.
src/librustc_mir/shim.rs
Outdated
|
||
match rcvr_ty.sty { | ||
ty::TyArray(ty, len) => { | ||
let mut returns = Vec::new(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm worried this might create code explosion for large arrays (think of <[Box<u8>; 1048576]>::clone
). Can you try to use a loop and let LLVM unroll it? You're late MIR, so I don't think you have to care about pre-initializing the array.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is also the possibility to only build a Clone
shim for [T; N]
where T: Copy
, as it's the case already.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would just write a loop.
src/librustc_mir/shim.rs
Outdated
func, | ||
args: vec![Operand::Consume(ref_loc)], | ||
destination: Some((loc.clone(), BasicBlock::new(i + 1))), | ||
cleanup: None, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is wrong - if the drop of a field panics, you need to drop all the previous fields.
It sounds like we have way too many places that try to create their own drop ladders, and we need some sort of unified abstraction.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, I was going to ask you about this anyway.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll need to write a drop ladder abstraction to help clean this up.
7370f8f
to
779d2c5
Compare
From a lang team perspective, I am on board with this change. I don't have an opinion on the compiler side of things. |
@arielb1 should be good now |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #43748) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
I like the approach. =) @bors r+ |
📌 Commit d58b40e has been approved by |
⌛ Testing commit d58b40e with merge 31c59189014531ca6f69c95d28add2bd4b2f3647... |
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
@bors: retry
|
Generate builtin impls for `Clone` This fixes a long-standing ICE and limitation where some builtin types implement `Copy` but not `Clone` (whereas `Clone` is a super trait of `Copy`). However, this PR has a few side-effects: * `Clone` is now marked as a lang item. * `[T; N]` is now `Clone` if `T: Clone` (currently, only if `T: Copy` and for `N <= 32`). * `fn foo<'a>() where &'a mut (): Clone { }` won't compile anymore because of how bounds for builtin traits are handled (e.g. same thing currently if you replace `Clone` by `Copy` in this example). Of course this function is unusable anyway, an error would pop as soon as it is called. Hence, I'm wondering wether this PR would need an RFC... Also, cc-ing @nikomatsakis, @arielb1. Related issues: #28229, #24000.
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
OK, so, I think I was a bit hasty in merging this PR. I thought that the only question at hand was whether it was ok for clone to be a lang-item and for us to generate impls of However, reading more carefully, I see that this PR generates clone impls for a few other cases beyond that minimal set. To be fair, these were called out in the PR description. I was just hasty.
For those two reasons, I am thinking that perhaps we should back out this change -- or at least disable it temporarily until we reach a consensus. (And perhaps both libs and lang team ought to be involved, given that |
I'm not sure it was necessarily intentional for |
Fair. Of course, under the approach implemented in this PR, that is not an issue. |
|
Remove the trait selection impl in method::probe This removes the hacky trait selection reimplementation in `method::probe`, which occasionally comes and causes problems. There are 2 issues I've found with this approach: 1. The older implementation sometimes had a "guess" type from an impl, which allowed subtyping to work. This is why I needed to make a change in `libtest`: there's an `impl<A> Clone for fn(A)` and we're calling `<for<'a> fn(&'a T) as Clone>::clone`. The older implementation would do a subtyping between the impl type and the trait type, so it would do the check for `<fn(A) as Clone>::clone`, and confirmation would continue with the subtyping. The newer implementation directly passes `<for<'a> fn(&'a T) as Clone>::clone` to selection, which fails. I'm not sure how big of a problem that would be in reality, especially after #43690 would remove the `Clone` problem, but I still want a crater run to avoid breaking the world. 2. The older implementation "looked into" impls to display error messages. I'm not sure that's an advantage - it looked exactly 1 level deep. r? @eddyb
Tracking issue #44496 |
Changelog: Version 1.21.0 (2017-10-12) ========================== Language -------- - [You can now use static references for literals.][43838] Example: ```rust fn main() { let x: &'static u32 = &0; } ``` - [Relaxed path syntax. Optional `::` before `<` is now allowed in all contexts.][43540] Example: ```rust my_macro!(Vec<i32>::new); // Always worked my_macro!(Vec::<i32>::new); // Now works ``` Compiler -------- - [Upgraded jemalloc to 4.5.0][43911] - [Enabled unwinding panics on Redox][43917] - [Now runs LLVM in parallel during translation phase.][43506] This should reduce peak memory usage. Libraries --------- - [Generate builtin impls for `Clone` for all arrays and tuples that are `T: Clone`][43690] - [`Stdin`, `Stdout`, and `Stderr` now implement `AsRawFd`.][43459] - [`Rc` and `Arc` now implement `From<&[T]> where T: Clone`, `From<str>`, `From<String>`, `From<Box<T>> where T: ?Sized`, and `From<Vec<T>>`.][42565] Stabilized APIs --------------- [`std::mem::discriminant`] Cargo ----- - [You can now call `cargo install` with multiple package names][cargo/4216] - [Cargo commands inside a virtual workspace will now implicitly pass `--all`][cargo/4335] - [Added a `[patch]` section to `Cargo.toml` to handle prepublication dependencies][cargo/4123] [RFC 1969] - [`include` & `exclude` fields in `Cargo.toml` now accept gitignore like patterns][cargo/4270] - [Added the `--all-targets` option][cargo/4400] - [Using required dependencies as a feature is now deprecated and emits a warning][cargo/4364] Misc ---- - [Cargo docs are moving][43916] to [doc.rust-lang.org/cargo](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo) - [The rustdoc book is now available][43863] at [doc.rust-lang.org/rustdoc](https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustdoc) - [Added a preview of RLS has been made available through rustup][44204] Install with `rustup component add rls-preview` - [`std::os` documentation for Unix, Linux, and Windows now appears on doc.rust-lang.org][43348] Previously only showed `std::os::unix`. Compatibility Notes ------------------- - [Changes in method matching against higher-ranked types][43880] This may cause breakage in subtyping corner cases. [A more in-depth explanation is available.][info/43880] - [rustc's JSON error output's byte position start at top of file.][42973] Was previously relative to the rustc's internal `CodeMap` struct which required the unstable library `libsyntax` to correctly use. - [`unused_results` lint no longer ignores booleans][43728] [42565]: rust-lang/rust#42565 [42973]: rust-lang/rust#42973 [43348]: rust-lang/rust#43348 [43459]: rust-lang/rust#43459 [43506]: rust-lang/rust#43506 [43540]: rust-lang/rust#43540 [43690]: rust-lang/rust#43690 [43728]: rust-lang/rust#43728 [43838]: rust-lang/rust#43838 [43863]: rust-lang/rust#43863 [43880]: rust-lang/rust#43880 [43911]: rust-lang/rust#43911 [43916]: rust-lang/rust#43916 [43917]: rust-lang/rust#43917 [44204]: rust-lang/rust#44204 [cargo/4123]: rust-lang/cargo#4123 [cargo/4216]: rust-lang/cargo#4216 [cargo/4270]: rust-lang/cargo#4270 [cargo/4335]: rust-lang/cargo#4335 [cargo/4364]: rust-lang/cargo#4364 [cargo/4400]: rust-lang/cargo#4400 [RFC 1969]: rust-lang/rfcs#1969 [info/43880]: rust-lang/rust#44224 (comment) [`std::mem::discriminant`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/mem/fn.discriminant.html
This should be the relevant issue: rust-lang/rust#43690.
This fixes a long-standing ICE and limitation where some builtin types implement
Copy
but notClone
(whereasClone
is a super trait ofCopy
).However, this PR has a few side-effects:
Clone
is now marked as a lang item.[T; N]
is nowClone
ifT: Clone
(currently, only ifT: Copy
and forN <= 32
).fn foo<'a>() where &'a mut (): Clone { }
won't compile anymore because of how bounds for builtin traits are handled (e.g. same thing currently if you replaceClone
byCopy
in this example). Of course this function is unusable anyway, an error would pop as soon as it is called.Hence, I'm wondering wether this PR would need an RFC...
Also, cc-ing @nikomatsakis, @arielb1.
Related issues: #28229, #24000.