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

Reimplement C-str literals #113476

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 25, 2023
Merged

Reimplement C-str literals #113476

merged 3 commits into from
Jul 25, 2023

Conversation

fee1-dead
Copy link
Member

@fee1-dead fee1-dead commented Jul 8, 2023

This reverts #113334, cc @fmease.

While converting lexer tokens to ast Tokens in rustc_parse, we check the edition of the span of the token. If the edition < 2021, we split the token into two, one being the identifier and other being the str literal.

Fixes #113333

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 8, 2023

r? @WaffleLapkin

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 8, 2023
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 8, 2023

These commits modify the Cargo.lock file. Unintentional changes to Cargo.lock can be introduced when switching branches and rebasing PRs.

If this was unintentional then you should revert the changes before this PR is merged.
Otherwise, you can ignore this comment.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 8, 2023

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

@petrochenkov petrochenkov self-assigned this Jul 8, 2023
@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

petrochenkov commented Jul 8, 2023

we pass is_rust_2021 as a boolean flag to the lexer

This sounds like a red flag, and if it is required, then the previous literal prefix future-proofing was probably done incorrectly.
I'll check in a couple of days.

@klensy
Copy link
Contributor

klensy commented Jul 8, 2023

Basically we pass is_rust_2021 as a boolean flag

So in edition > 2021 this will be false and broken? For example edition 2024.
Ugh, sess.edition.rust_2021() actually means edition >= 2021, thats unexpected.

@fee1-dead
Copy link
Member Author

That flag will be true for 2024. Should I rename?

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

we pass is_rust_2021 as a boolean flag to the lexer

This sounds like a red flag, and if it is required, then the previous literal prefix future-proofing was probably done incorrectly. I'll check in a couple of days.

The future-proofing is correct.
fn next_token in the parser pulls the next token from the lexer, applies a span to it (including hygiene information which contains edition) and report_unknown_prefix processes it and reports or not reports the error.

If this PR worked consistently with the existing future-proofing check, then it would either:

  • In fn next_token pull the whole C-str literal and then break it into two tokens if the edition is 2015-2018.
  • In fn next_token pull the prefix and then additionally pull the rest of the C-str literal and combine, if the prefix's edition is 2021+.

Both variants may require changes to the lexer, but neither of them requires passing an edition to it.
We can implement any of these alternatives that is simpler to implement in practice.

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

That flag will be true for 2024. Should I rename?

If this is implemented in lexer (rather than as post-processing in fn next_token), then I'd rather rename it to something like enable_c_str to make the lexer configurable, but still edition-oblivious.

@petrochenkov petrochenkov added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 10, 2023
@fee1-dead
Copy link
Member Author

I'll try implementing edition-based token combining then.

@fee1-dead
Copy link
Member Author

implemented edition-based token splitting instead

@petrochenkov petrochenkov added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jul 16, 2023
@petrochenkov petrochenkov removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jul 17, 2023
@petrochenkov petrochenkov added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 24, 2023
@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks!
@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 25, 2023

📌 Commit a0376e9 has been approved by petrochenkov

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jul 25, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 25, 2023

⌛ Testing commit a0376e9 with merge 23405bb...

@fmease
Copy link
Member

fmease commented Jul 25, 2023

Could you add "Fixes #113333" to the PR description since this PR doesn't need backporting?

@fee1-dead
Copy link
Member Author

Could you add "Fixes #113333" to the PR description since this PR doesn't need backporting?

done

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 25, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: petrochenkov
Pushing 23405bb to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jul 25, 2023
@bors bors merged commit 23405bb into rust-lang:master Jul 25, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.73.0 milestone Jul 25, 2023
@fee1-dead fee1-dead deleted the c-str-lit branch July 25, 2023 16:37
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (23405bb): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
0.7% [0.7%, 0.7%] 3
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.7% [0.5%, 1.2%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.7% [0.7%, 0.7%] 3

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.9% [-3.2%, -2.5%] 2
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.9% [-3.2%, -2.5%] 2

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.1% [2.1%, 2.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 651.831s -> 651.438s (-0.06%)

@rylev
Copy link
Member

rylev commented Aug 5, 2023

Perf: this is noise

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged

@rustbot rustbot added the perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. label Aug 5, 2023
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2023
…ilstrieb

Stabilize C string literals

RFC: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3348-c-str-literal.html

Tracking issue: rust-lang#105723

Documentation PR (reference manual): rust-lang/reference#1423

# Stabilization report

Stabilizes C string and raw C string literals (`c"..."` and `cr#"..."#`), which are expressions of type [`&CStr`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/core/ffi/struct.CStr.html). Both new literals require Rust edition 2021 or later.

```rust
const HELLO: &core::ffi::CStr = c"Hello, world!";
```

C strings may contain any byte other than `NUL` (`b'\x00'`), and their in-memory representation is guaranteed to end with `NUL`.

## Implementation

Originally implemented by PR rust-lang#108801, which was reverted due to unintentional changes to lexer behavior in Rust editions < 2021.

The current implementation landed in PR rust-lang#113476, which restricts C string literals to Rust edition >= 2021.

## Resolutions to open questions from the RFC

* Adding C character literals (`c'.'`) of type `c_char` is not part of this feature.
  * Support for `c"..."` literals does not prevent `c'.'` literals from being added in the future.
* C string literals should not be blocked on making `&CStr` a thin pointer.
  * It's possible to declare constant expressions of type `&'static CStr` in stable Rust (as of v1.59), so C string literals are not adding additional coupling on the internal representation of `CStr`.
* The unstable `concat_bytes!` macro should not accept `c"..."` literals.
  * C strings have two equally valid `&[u8]` representations (with or without terminal `NUL`), so allowing them to be used in `concat_bytes!` would be ambiguous.
* Adding a type to represent C strings containing valid UTF-8 is not part of this feature.
  * Support for a hypothetical `&Utf8CStr` may be explored in the future, should such a type be added to Rust.
bors added a commit to rust-lang/miri that referenced this pull request Dec 2, 2023
Stabilize C string literals

RFC: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3348-c-str-literal.html

Tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#105723

Documentation PR (reference manual): rust-lang/reference#1423

# Stabilization report

Stabilizes C string and raw C string literals (`c"..."` and `cr#"..."#`), which are expressions of type [`&CStr`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/core/ffi/struct.CStr.html). Both new literals require Rust edition 2021 or later.

```rust
const HELLO: &core::ffi::CStr = c"Hello, world!";
```

C strings may contain any byte other than `NUL` (`b'\x00'`), and their in-memory representation is guaranteed to end with `NUL`.

## Implementation

Originally implemented by PR rust-lang/rust#108801, which was reverted due to unintentional changes to lexer behavior in Rust editions < 2021.

The current implementation landed in PR rust-lang/rust#113476, which restricts C string literals to Rust edition >= 2021.

## Resolutions to open questions from the RFC

* Adding C character literals (`c'.'`) of type `c_char` is not part of this feature.
  * Support for `c"..."` literals does not prevent `c'.'` literals from being added in the future.
* C string literals should not be blocked on making `&CStr` a thin pointer.
  * It's possible to declare constant expressions of type `&'static CStr` in stable Rust (as of v1.59), so C string literals are not adding additional coupling on the internal representation of `CStr`.
* The unstable `concat_bytes!` macro should not accept `c"..."` literals.
  * C strings have two equally valid `&[u8]` representations (with or without terminal `NUL`), so allowing them to be used in `concat_bytes!` would be ambiguous.
* Adding a type to represent C strings containing valid UTF-8 is not part of this feature.
  * Support for a hypothetical `&Utf8CStr` may be explored in the future, should such a type be added to Rust.
flip1995 pushed a commit to flip1995/rust-clippy that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2023
Stabilize C string literals

RFC: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3348-c-str-literal.html

Tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#105723

Documentation PR (reference manual): rust-lang/reference#1423

# Stabilization report

Stabilizes C string and raw C string literals (`c"..."` and `cr#"..."#`), which are expressions of type [`&CStr`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/core/ffi/struct.CStr.html). Both new literals require Rust edition 2021 or later.

```rust
const HELLO: &core::ffi::CStr = c"Hello, world!";
```

C strings may contain any byte other than `NUL` (`b'\x00'`), and their in-memory representation is guaranteed to end with `NUL`.

## Implementation

Originally implemented by PR rust-lang/rust#108801, which was reverted due to unintentional changes to lexer behavior in Rust editions < 2021.

The current implementation landed in PR rust-lang/rust#113476, which restricts C string literals to Rust edition >= 2021.

## Resolutions to open questions from the RFC

* Adding C character literals (`c'.'`) of type `c_char` is not part of this feature.
  * Support for `c"..."` literals does not prevent `c'.'` literals from being added in the future.
* C string literals should not be blocked on making `&CStr` a thin pointer.
  * It's possible to declare constant expressions of type `&'static CStr` in stable Rust (as of v1.59), so C string literals are not adding additional coupling on the internal representation of `CStr`.
* The unstable `concat_bytes!` macro should not accept `c"..."` literals.
  * C strings have two equally valid `&[u8]` representations (with or without terminal `NUL`), so allowing them to be used in `concat_bytes!` would be ambiguous.
* Adding a type to represent C strings containing valid UTF-8 is not part of this feature.
  * Support for a hypothetical `&Utf8CStr` may be explored in the future, should such a type be added to Rust.
lnicola pushed a commit to lnicola/rust-analyzer that referenced this pull request Apr 7, 2024
Stabilize C string literals

RFC: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3348-c-str-literal.html

Tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#105723

Documentation PR (reference manual): rust-lang/reference#1423

# Stabilization report

Stabilizes C string and raw C string literals (`c"..."` and `cr#"..."#`), which are expressions of type [`&CStr`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/core/ffi/struct.CStr.html). Both new literals require Rust edition 2021 or later.

```rust
const HELLO: &core::ffi::CStr = c"Hello, world!";
```

C strings may contain any byte other than `NUL` (`b'\x00'`), and their in-memory representation is guaranteed to end with `NUL`.

## Implementation

Originally implemented by PR rust-lang/rust#108801, which was reverted due to unintentional changes to lexer behavior in Rust editions < 2021.

The current implementation landed in PR rust-lang/rust#113476, which restricts C string literals to Rust edition >= 2021.

## Resolutions to open questions from the RFC

* Adding C character literals (`c'.'`) of type `c_char` is not part of this feature.
  * Support for `c"..."` literals does not prevent `c'.'` literals from being added in the future.
* C string literals should not be blocked on making `&CStr` a thin pointer.
  * It's possible to declare constant expressions of type `&'static CStr` in stable Rust (as of v1.59), so C string literals are not adding additional coupling on the internal representation of `CStr`.
* The unstable `concat_bytes!` macro should not accept `c"..."` literals.
  * C strings have two equally valid `&[u8]` representations (with or without terminal `NUL`), so allowing them to be used in `concat_bytes!` would be ambiguous.
* Adding a type to represent C strings containing valid UTF-8 is not part of this feature.
  * Support for a hypothetical `&Utf8CStr` may be explored in the future, should such a type be added to Rust.
RalfJung pushed a commit to RalfJung/rust-analyzer that referenced this pull request Apr 27, 2024
Stabilize C string literals

RFC: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3348-c-str-literal.html

Tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#105723

Documentation PR (reference manual): rust-lang/reference#1423

# Stabilization report

Stabilizes C string and raw C string literals (`c"..."` and `cr#"..."#`), which are expressions of type [`&CStr`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/core/ffi/struct.CStr.html). Both new literals require Rust edition 2021 or later.

```rust
const HELLO: &core::ffi::CStr = c"Hello, world!";
```

C strings may contain any byte other than `NUL` (`b'\x00'`), and their in-memory representation is guaranteed to end with `NUL`.

## Implementation

Originally implemented by PR rust-lang/rust#108801, which was reverted due to unintentional changes to lexer behavior in Rust editions < 2021.

The current implementation landed in PR rust-lang/rust#113476, which restricts C string literals to Rust edition >= 2021.

## Resolutions to open questions from the RFC

* Adding C character literals (`c'.'`) of type `c_char` is not part of this feature.
  * Support for `c"..."` literals does not prevent `c'.'` literals from being added in the future.
* C string literals should not be blocked on making `&CStr` a thin pointer.
  * It's possible to declare constant expressions of type `&'static CStr` in stable Rust (as of v1.59), so C string literals are not adding additional coupling on the internal representation of `CStr`.
* The unstable `concat_bytes!` macro should not accept `c"..."` literals.
  * C strings have two equally valid `&[u8]` representations (with or without terminal `NUL`), so allowing them to be used in `concat_bytes!` would be ambiguous.
* Adding a type to represent C strings containing valid UTF-8 is not part of this feature.
  * Support for a hypothetical `&Utf8CStr` may be explored in the future, should such a type be added to Rust.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-testsuite Area: The testsuite used to check the correctness of rustc merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. perf-regression Performance regression. perf-regression-triaged The performance regression has been triaged. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Reimplement the lexing of c"…" string literals with backward compatibility in mind