Skip to content
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

Rustup #6389

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 27, 2020
Merged

Rustup #6389

merged 6 commits into from
Nov 27, 2020

Conversation

giraffate
Copy link
Contributor

changelog: none

flip1995 and others added 6 commits November 24, 2020 10:37
Also stop updating the lintlist module in clippy_dev update_lints
rustc_ast currently has a few dependencies on rustc_lexer. Ideally, an AST
would not have any dependency its lexer, for minimizing unnecessarily
design-time dependencies. Breaking this dependency would also have practical
benefits, since modifying rustc_lexer would not trigger a rebuild of rustc_ast.

This commit does not remove the rustc_ast --> rustc_lexer dependency,
but it does remove one of the sources of this dependency, which is the
code that handles fuzzy matching between symbol names for making suggestions
in diagnostics. Since that code depends only on Symbol, it is easy to move
it to rustc_span. It might even be best to move it to a separate crate,
since other tools such as Cargo use the same algorithm, and have simply
contain a duplicate of the code.

This changes the signature of find_best_match_for_name so that it is no
longer generic over its input. I checked the optimized binaries, and this
function was duplicated at nearly every call site, because most call sites
used short-lived iterator chains, generic over Map and such. But there's
no good reason for a function like this to be generic, since all it does
is immediately convert the generic input (the Iterator impl) to a concrete
Vec<Symbol>. This has all of the costs of generics (duplicated method bodies)
with no benefit.

Changing find_best_match_for_name to be non-generic removed about 10KB of
code from the optimized binary. I know it's a drop in the bucket, but we have
to start reducing binary size, and beginning to tame over-use of generics
is part of that.
…anishearth

Always print lints from plugins, if they're available

Currently you can get a list of lints and lint groups by running `rustc
-Whelp`. This prints an additional line at the end:
```
Compiler plugins can provide additional lints and lint groups. To see a listing of these, re-run `rustc -W help` with a crate filename.
```

Clippy is such a "compiler plugin", that provides additional lints.
Running `clippy-driver -Whelp` (`rustc` wrapper) still only prints the
rustc lints with the above message at the end. But when running
`clippy-driver -Whelp main.rs`, where `main.rs` is any rust file, it
also prints Clippy lints. I don't think this is a good approach from a
UX perspective: Why is a random file necessary to print a help message?

This PR changes this behavior: Whenever a compiler callback
registers lints, it is assumed that these lints come from a plugin and
are printed without having to specify a Rust source file.

Fixes rust-lang#6122

cc `@Manishearth` `@ebroto` for the Clippy changes.
@rust-highfive
Copy link

r? @ebroto

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Nov 27, 2020
@llogiq
Copy link
Contributor

llogiq commented Nov 27, 2020

Cool! Rustc now handles the lint list for us! @bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 27, 2020

📌 Commit e91d15f has been approved by llogiq

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 27, 2020

⌛ Testing commit e91d15f with merge 7a73990...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 27, 2020

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: llogiq
Pushing 7a73990 to master...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants