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

Unify AST Visitors with a macro like MIR Visitors #128974

Open
wants to merge 145 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Unify AST Visitors with a macro like MIR Visitors #128974

wants to merge 145 commits into from

Conversation

maxcabrajac
Copy link

This is WIP PR to work on #127615

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Aug 11, 2024

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @lcnr (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

  • @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
  • @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

@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 11, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@cjgillot cjgillot self-assigned this Aug 11, 2024
@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented Aug 12, 2024

r? compiler

@rustbot rustbot assigned davidtwco and unassigned cjgillot and lcnr Aug 12, 2024
@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented Aug 12, 2024

r? @cjgillot woops

@rustbot rustbot assigned cjgillot and unassigned davidtwco Aug 12, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
cjgillot
cjgillot reviewed Aug 27, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@cjgillot cjgillot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wow, that's some great work you did @maxcabrajac!
Please take this as an opportunity to simplify stuff. If some distinction has you make weird corner cases, don't hesitate to remove it. My comments are suggestions in this direction.

compiler/rustc_ast/src/visitors.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_ast/src/visitors.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_ast/src/visitors.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
cjgillot
cjgillot reviewed Aug 27, 2024
View reviewed changes
compiler/rustc_ast/src/visitors.rs Outdated
Comment on lines 320 to 325
make_visit!{P!(Local), visit_local, walk_local}
make_visit!{P!(Pat), visit_pat, walk_pat}
make_visit!{P!(Expr), visit_expr, walk_expr}
make_visit!{P!(Ty), visit_ty, walk_ty}
make_visit!{P!(Block), visit_block, walk_block}
make_visit!{P!(FnDecl), visit_fn_decl, walk_fn_decl}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we remove the P! from all these?

Copy link
Author

@maxcabrajac maxcabrajac Aug 27, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I put these P! to maintain all function signatures the same, thus avoiding changes on implementers. I don't know why the original MutVisitor received &mut P<T> instead of &mut T for these types, but I just kept what was being done.

@maxcabrajac
Copy link
Author

I think it's better to do two passes. Do what can be done without changing the trait API, after that, change what is weird about their original implementation and change all implementers accordingly. What do you think about it?
There is a pretty big roadblock now... Everything around walk_item seems to be pretty different from Visitor to MutVisitor and I really don't know where to start =/. Do you have any advice on that?

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
@maxcabrajac
Formatting
fa3c581
@maxcabrajac
Organize visitors.rs
758076f
@maxcabrajac
Remove visit_exprs
82bc8d6
@maxcabrajac
Add visit_defaultness
1fe71b8
@maxcabrajac
Add visit_safety
2919360
@maxcabrajac
Add visit_polarity
80e9870
@maxcabrajac
Add visit_constness
114fbaf
@maxcabrajac
Add visit_ty_alias_where_clauses
98f161a
@maxcabrajac
Move mutability_dependent! inside of make_ast_visitor!
4b2dc19
@maxcabrajac
Recursively call visit_list!
7cfe24c
@maxcabrajac
Change TODO: Remove P! to FIXME
9c9bc51
@maxcabrajac
Make make_visit! able to handle multiple parameters
47eb57b
@maxcabrajac
Use make_visit! to generate visits that take extra parameters
e7f366a
@maxcabrajac
Use make_visit! inside of mutability_dependent!
200e645
@maxcabrajac
Unify walk_flat_map_assoc_item
1cbe986
@maxcabrajac
Change comments and docs to be mutability agnostic
bfd60e5
@maxcabrajac
Formatting
e4bcae4
@maxcabrajac
Remove visit_attrs
9112997
@maxcabrajac
Add visit_attr_args
5c94d26
@maxcabrajac
Remove stray line
80b8188
@maxcabrajac
Impl derive_copy_clone! with if_mut_ty!
656f870
@maxcabrajac
Define if_mut_{item,ty,expr}! in terms of a general if_mut!
122bf64
@maxcabrajac
Remove if_mut_expr!
1874da7
@maxcabrajac
Remove if_mut_ty!
2d6e384
@maxcabrajac
Remove if_mut_item!
de951c8
@maxcabrajac
Remove mutability_dependent!
5ca2d99
@maxcabrajac
Rename lifetime_helpers! to define_fn_kind!
d667ab6
@maxcabrajac
Another instance of infinite indentation
4fba12f
@maxcabrajac maxcabrajac mentioned this pull request Oct 12, 2024
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@oli-obk oli-obk oli-obk left review comments

@cjgillot cjgillot Awaiting requested review from cjgillot

Assignees

@cjgillot cjgillot

Labels
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.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
8 participants
@maxcabrajac @rustbot @rust-log-analyzer @lcnr @cjgillot @bors @oli-obk @davidtwco