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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Parse unnamed fields and anonymous structs or unions (no-recovery) #115131

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 24, 2023
Merged

Parse unnamed fields and anonymous structs or unions (no-recovery) #115131

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 24, 2023

Conversation

frank-king
Copy link
Contributor

@frank-king frank-king commented Aug 23, 2023 •
edited
Loading

It is part of #114782 which implements #49804. Only parse anonymous structs or unions in struct field definition positions.

r? @petrochenkov

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Aug 23, 2023
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Aug 23, 2023

Some changes occurred in src/tools/rustfmt

cc @rust-lang/rustfmt

petrochenkov
petrochenkov reviewed Aug 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
compiler/rustc_ast/src/token.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/item.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/ty.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

r=me with nits addressed.
@rustbot author

@rustbot rustbot 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 Aug 24, 2023
@frank-king @carbotaniuman
Parse unnamed fields and anonymous structs or unions
868706d 
Anonymous structs or unions are only allowed in struct field
definitions.

Co-authored-by: carbotaniuman <[email protected]>
@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 24, 2023

📌 Commit 868706d 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 Aug 24, 2023
@frank-king frank-king changed the title Parse unnamed fields and anonymous structs or unions Parse unnamed fields and anonymous structs or unions (no-recovery) Aug 24, 2023
@frank-king frank-king mentioned this pull request Aug 24, 2023
Open
4 tasks
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 24, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 868706d with merge 18be272...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 24, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: petrochenkov
Pushing 18be272 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Aug 24, 2023
@bors bors merged commit 18be272 into rust-lang:master Aug 24, 2023
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.74.0 milestone Aug 24, 2023
@frank-king frank-king deleted the feature/unnamed-fields-lite branch August 24, 2023 14:59
@bors bors mentioned this pull request Aug 24, 2023
Closed
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (18be272): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

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
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 0.3% [0.3%, 0.3%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 - - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -0.4% [-0.4%, -0.4%] 2
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

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)		 2.3% [2.3%, 2.3%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)		 5.7% [0.9%, 13.4%] 8
Improvements ✅
(primary)		 -0.8% [-0.8%, -0.8%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)		 -1.7% [-2.5%, -1.2%] 3
All ❌✅ (primary) 0.8% [-0.8%, 2.3%] 2

Cycles

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

Binary size

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

Bootstrap: 631.457s -> 630.163s (-0.20%)
Artifact size: 315.81 MiB -> 315.81 MiB (0.00%)

@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Nov 15, 2023
Closed
@fmease fmease added the F-unnamed_fields `#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` label Feb 9, 2024
@compiler-errors compiler-errors mentioned this pull request Sep 30, 2024
Merged
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#131045 - compiler-errors:remove-unnamed_field…
80325f2 
…s, r=wesleywiser

Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now

`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in rust-lang#115131 and rust-lang#115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.

However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.

Fixes rust-lang#117942
Fixes rust-lang#121161
Fixes rust-lang#121263
Fixes rust-lang#121299
Fixes rust-lang#121722
Fixes rust-lang#121799
Fixes rust-lang#126969
Fixes rust-lang#131041

Tracking:
* rust-lang#49804

[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: rust-lang#49804 (comment)
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#131045 - compiler-errors:remove-unnamed_field…
f496659 
…s, r=wesleywiser

Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now

`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in rust-lang#115131 and rust-lang#115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.

However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.

Fixes rust-lang#117942
Fixes rust-lang#121161
Fixes rust-lang#121263
Fixes rust-lang#121299
Fixes rust-lang#121722
Fixes rust-lang#121799
Fixes rust-lang#126969
Fixes rust-lang#131041

Tracking:
* rust-lang#49804

[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: rust-lang#49804 (comment)
flip1995 pushed a commit to flip1995/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2024
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#131045 - compiler-errors:remove-unnamed_field…
f5cc292 
…s, r=wesleywiser

Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now

`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in rust-lang#115131 and rust-lang#115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.

However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.

Fixes rust-lang#117942
Fixes rust-lang#121161
Fixes rust-lang#121263
Fixes rust-lang#121299
Fixes rust-lang#121722
Fixes rust-lang#121799
Fixes rust-lang#126969
Fixes rust-lang#131041

Tracking:
* rust-lang#49804

[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: rust-lang#49804 (comment)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@petrochenkov petrochenkov petrochenkov left review comments

Assignees

@petrochenkov petrochenkov

Labels
F-unnamed_fields `#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.74.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@frank-king @rustbot @petrochenkov @bors @rust-timer @fmease