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

Fix drop handling for if let expressions #88572

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Sep 3, 2021

Conversation

matthewjasper
Copy link
Contributor

MIR lowering for if let expressions is now more complicated now that
if let exists in HIR. This PR adds a scope for the variables bound in
an if let expression and then uses an approach similar to how we
handle loops to ensure that we reliably drop the correct variables.

Closes #88307
cc @flip1995 @richkadel @c410-f3r

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @michaelwoerister

(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 Sep 1, 2021
MIR lowering for `if let` expressions is now more complicated now that
`if let` exists in HIR. This PR adds a scope for the variables bound in
an `if let` expression and then uses an approach similar to how we
handle loops to ensure that we reliably drop the correct variables.
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@c410-f3r c410-f3r left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeap, changes are not trivial.

Thank you very much, @matthewjasper!

@@ -1187,6 +1187,7 @@ pub struct Arm<'hir> {
#[derive(Debug, HashStable_Generic)]
pub enum Guard<'hir> {
If(&'hir Expr<'hir>),
// FIXME use ExprKind::Let for this.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess I can take care of this in a following PR

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@matthewjasper
Copy link
Contributor Author

r? @oli-obk

@@ -134,7 +135,6 @@
}

bb10: {
StorageDead(_10); // scope 2 at $DIR/funky_arms.rs:29:5: 29:6
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🎉

@@ -101,14 +101,13 @@
- bb10: {
+ bb7: {
_9 = (*_6); // scope 0 at $DIR/match-arm-scopes.rs:15:70: 15:71
StorageDead(_10); // scope 0 at $DIR/match-arm-scopes.rs:15:72: 15:73
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This diff shows quite a few less-well-placed StorageDead markers.

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Sep 3, 2021

Thanks for the thorough documentation/comments, that made reviewing so much easier!

@bors r+ p=1 (regression fix, should get merged before beta branch off, we really don't want to backport this)

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 3, 2021

📌 Commit 9366dfd has been approved by oli-obk

@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-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Sep 3, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 3, 2021

⌛ Testing commit 9366dfd with merge 304ba69ef66cbeb06bc69816f85d5e69f6115f3c...

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 3, 2021

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Sep 3, 2021
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Sep 3, 2021

ugh yea, the instrument coverage mir opt test requires you to locally enable instrumentation in config.toml, which may require some additional setup to get working

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Sep 3, 2021

r=me with that

@richkadel
Copy link
Contributor

@matthewjasper you may need to enable profiler = true and re-bless the mir-opt.

Hopefully this isn't throwing off coverage ranges in run-make-fulldeps/coverage, but you make want to test that locally as well.

Thanks!

@richkadel
Copy link
Contributor

Honestly, I think that setting should be the default now.

| 39| 1|pub fn used_only_from_bin_crate_generic_function<T: Debug>(arg: T) {
| 40| 1| println!("used_only_from_bin_crate_generic_function with {:?}", arg);
| 41| 1|}
------------------
| used_inline_crate::used_only_from_bin_crate_generic_function::<&str>:
| used_inline_crate::used_only_from_bin_crate_generic_function::<&alloc::vec::Vec<i32>>:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These differences in coverage results are OK (you can keep them in your commit, or drop them).

Unfortunately, llvm-cov show reports have some non-deterministic ordering. The rust tests ignore those kinds of diffs.

@matthewjasper
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors r=oli-obk

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 3, 2021

📌 Commit 4e2fd4f has been approved by oli-obk

@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-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Sep 3, 2021
@m-ou-se m-ou-se added this to the 1.56.0 milestone Sep 3, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 3, 2021

⌛ Testing commit 4e2fd4f with merge b7404c8...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Sep 3, 2021

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing b7404c8 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Sep 3, 2021
@bors bors merged commit b7404c8 into rust-lang:master Sep 3, 2021
@matthewjasper matthewjasper deleted the if-let-scoping-fix branch September 3, 2021 23:42
JohnTitor added a commit to JohnTitor/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2022
…shtriplett

Stabilize `let_chains` in Rust 1.64

# Stabilization proposal

This PR proposes the stabilization of `#![feature(let_chains)]` in a future-compatibility way that will allow the **possible** addition of the `EXPR is PAT` syntax.

Tracking issue: rust-lang#53667
Version: 1.64 (beta => 2022-08-11, stable => 2022-10-22).

## What is stabilized

The ability to chain let expressions along side local variable declarations or ordinary conditional expressions. For example:

```rust
pub enum Color {
    Blue,
    Red,
    Violet,
}

pub enum Flower {
    Rose,
    Tulip,
    Violet,
}

pub fn roses_are_red_violets_are_blue_printer(
    (first_flower, first_flower_color): (Flower, Color),
    (second_flower, second_flower_color): (Flower, Color),
    pick_up_lines: &[&str],
) {
    if let Flower::Rose = first_flower
        && let Color::Red = first_flower_color
        && let Flower::Violet = second_flower
        && let Color::Blue = second_flower_color
        && let &[first_pick_up_line, ..] = pick_up_lines
    {
        println!("Roses are red, violets are blue, {}", first_pick_up_line);
    }
}

fn main() {
    roses_are_red_violets_are_blue_printer(
        (Flower::Rose, Color::Red),
        (Flower::Violet, Color::Blue),
        &["sugar is sweet and so are you"],
    );
}
```

## Motivation

The main motivation for this feature is improving readability, ergonomics and reducing paper cuts.

For more examples, see the [RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2497-if-let-chains.md).

## What isn't stabilized

* Let chains in match guards (`if_let_guard`)

* Resolution of divergent non-terminal matchers

* The `EXPR is PAT` syntax

## History

* On 2017-12-24, [RFC: if- and while-let-chains](rust-lang/rfcs#2260)
* On 2018-07-12, [eRFC: if- and while-let-chains, take 2](rust-lang/rfcs#2497)
* On 2018-08-24, [Tracking issue for eRFC 2497, "if- and while-let-chains, take 2](rust-lang#53667)
* On 2019-03-19, [Run branch cleanup after copy prop](rust-lang#59290)
* On 2019-03-26, [Generalize diagnostic for x = y where bool is the expected type](rust-lang#59439)
* On 2019-04-24, [Introduce hir::ExprKind::Use and employ in for loop desugaring](rust-lang#60225)
* On 2019-03-19, [[let_chains, 1/6] Remove hir::ExprKind::If](rust-lang#59288)
* On 2019-05-15, [[let_chains, 2/6] Introduce Let(..) in AST, remove IfLet + WhileLet and parse let chains](rust-lang#60861)
* On 2019-06-20, [[let_chains, 3/6] And then there was only Loop](rust-lang#61988)
* On 2020-11-22, [Reintroduce hir::ExprKind::If](rust-lang#79328)
* On 2020-12-24, [Introduce hir::ExprKind::Let - Take 2](rust-lang#80357)
* On 2021-02-19, [Lower condition of if expression before it's "then" block](rust-lang#82308)
* On 2021-09-01, [Fix drop handling for `if let` expressions](rust-lang#88572)
* On 2021-09-04, [Formally implement let chains](rust-lang#88642)
* On 2022-01-19, [Add tests to ensure that let_chains works with if_let_guard](rust-lang#93086)
* On 2022-01-18, [Introduce `enhanced_binary_op` feature](rust-lang#93049)
* On 2022-01-22, [Fix `let_chains` and `if_let_guard` feature flags](rust-lang#93213)
* On 2022-02-25, [Initiate the inner usage of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94376)
* On 2022-01-28, [[WIP] Introduce ast::StmtKind::LetElse to allow the usage of `let_else` with `let_chains`](rust-lang#93437)
* On 2022-02-26, [1 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94396)
* On 2022-02-26, [2 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94400)
* On 2022-02-27, [3 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94420)
* On 2022-02-28, [4 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94445)
* On 2022-02-28, [5 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94448)
* On 2022-02-28, [6 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94465)
* On 2022-03-01, [7 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94476)
* On 2022-03-01, [8 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94484)
* On 2022-03-01, [9 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94498)
* On 2022-03-08, [Warn users about `||` in let chain expressions](rust-lang#94754)

From the first RFC (2017-12-24) to the theoretical future stabilization day (2022-10-22), it can be said that this feature took 4 years, 9 months and 28 days of research, development, discussions, agreements and headaches to be settled.

## Divergent non-terminal matchers

More specifically, rust-lang#86730.

```rust
macro_rules! mac {
    ($e:expr) => {
        if $e {
            true
        } else {
            false
        }
    };
}

fn main() {
    // OK!
    assert_eq!(mac!(true && let 1 = 1), true);

    // ERROR! Anything starting with `let` is not considered an expression
    assert_eq!(mac!(let 1 = 1 && true), true);
}
```

To the best of my knowledge, such error or divergence is orthogonal, does not prevent stabilization and can be tackled independently in the near future or effectively in the next Rust 2024 edition. If not, then https://github.com/c410-f3r/rust/tree/let-macro-blah contains a set of changes that will consider `let` an expression.

It is possible that none of the solutions above satisfies all applicable constraints but I personally don't know of any other plausible answers.

## Alternative syntax

Taking into account the usefulness of this feature and the overwhelming desire to use both now and in the past, `let PAT = EXPR` will be utilized for stabilization but it doesn't or shall create any obstacle for a **possible** future addition of `EXPR is PAT`.

The introductory snippet would then be written as the following.

```rust
if first_flower is Flower::Rose
    && first_flower_color is Color::Red
    && second_flower is Flower::Violet
    && second_flower_color is Color::Blue
    && pick_up_lines is &[first_pick_up_line, ..]
{
    println!("Roses are red, violets are blue, {}", first_pick_up_line);
}
```

Just to reinforce, this PR only unblocks a **possible** future road for `EXPR is PAT` and does emphasize what is better or what is worse.

## Tests

* [Verifies the drop order of let chains and ensures it won't change in the future in an unpredictable way](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/mir/mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs)

* [AST lowering does not wrap let chains in an `DropTemps` expression](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs)

* [Checks pretty printing output](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-pretty-check.rs)

* [Verifies uninitialized variables due to MIR modifications](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/chains-without-let.rs)

* [A collection of statements where `let` expressions are forbidden](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs)

* [All or at least most of the places where let chains are allowed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/feature-gate.rs)

* [Ensures that irrefutable lets are allowed in let chains](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/irrefutable-lets.rs)

* [issue-88498.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-88498.rs), [issue-90722.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-90722.rs), [issue-92145.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-92145.rs) and [issue-93150.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-93150.rs) were bugs found by third parties and fixed overtime.

* [Indexing was triggering a ICE due to a wrongly constructed MIR graph](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/no-double-assigments.rs)

* [Protects the precedence of `&&` in relation to other things](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/protect-precedences.rs)

* [`let_chains`, as well as `if_let_guard`, has a valid MIR graph that evaluates conditional expressions correctly](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/then-else-blocks.rs)

Most of the infra-structure used by let chains is also used by `if` expressions in stable compiler versions since rust-lang#80357 and rust-lang#88572. As a result, no bugs were found since the integration of rust-lang#88642.

## Possible future work

* Let chains in match guards is implemented and working but stabilization is blocked by `if_let_guard`.

* The usage of `let_chains` with `let_else` is possible but not implemented. Regardless, one attempt was introduced and closed in rust-lang#93437.

Thanks `@Centril` for creating the RFC and huge thanks (again) to `@matthewjasper` for all the reviews, mentoring and MIR implementations.

Fixes rust-lang#53667
workingjubilee pushed a commit to tcdi/postgrestd that referenced this pull request Sep 15, 2022
Stabilize `let_chains` in Rust 1.64

# Stabilization proposal

This PR proposes the stabilization of `#![feature(let_chains)]` in a future-compatibility way that will allow the **possible** addition of the `EXPR is PAT` syntax.

Tracking issue: #53667
Version: 1.64 (beta => 2022-08-11, stable => 2022-10-22).

## What is stabilized

The ability to chain let expressions along side local variable declarations or ordinary conditional expressions. For example:

```rust
pub enum Color {
    Blue,
    Red,
    Violet,
}

pub enum Flower {
    Rose,
    Tulip,
    Violet,
}

pub fn roses_are_red_violets_are_blue_printer(
    (first_flower, first_flower_color): (Flower, Color),
    (second_flower, second_flower_color): (Flower, Color),
    pick_up_lines: &[&str],
) {
    if let Flower::Rose = first_flower
        && let Color::Red = first_flower_color
        && let Flower::Violet = second_flower
        && let Color::Blue = second_flower_color
        && let &[first_pick_up_line, ..] = pick_up_lines
    {
        println!("Roses are red, violets are blue, {}", first_pick_up_line);
    }
}

fn main() {
    roses_are_red_violets_are_blue_printer(
        (Flower::Rose, Color::Red),
        (Flower::Violet, Color::Blue),
        &["sugar is sweet and so are you"],
    );
}
```

## Motivation

The main motivation for this feature is improving readability, ergonomics and reducing paper cuts.

For more examples, see the [RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2497-if-let-chains.md).

## What isn't stabilized

* Let chains in match guards (`if_let_guard`)

* Resolution of divergent non-terminal matchers

* The `EXPR is PAT` syntax

## History

* On 2017-12-24, [RFC: if- and while-let-chains](rust-lang/rfcs#2260)
* On 2018-07-12, [eRFC: if- and while-let-chains, take 2](rust-lang/rfcs#2497)
* On 2018-08-24, [Tracking issue for eRFC 2497, "if- and while-let-chains, take 2](rust-lang/rust#53667)
* On 2019-03-19, [Run branch cleanup after copy prop](rust-lang/rust#59290)
* On 2019-03-26, [Generalize diagnostic for x = y where bool is the expected type](rust-lang/rust#59439)
* On 2019-04-24, [Introduce hir::ExprKind::Use and employ in for loop desugaring](rust-lang/rust#60225)
* On 2019-03-19, [[let_chains, 1/6] Remove hir::ExprKind::If](rust-lang/rust#59288)
* On 2019-05-15, [[let_chains, 2/6] Introduce Let(..) in AST, remove IfLet + WhileLet and parse let chains](rust-lang/rust#60861)
* On 2019-06-20, [[let_chains, 3/6] And then there was only Loop](rust-lang/rust#61988)
* On 2020-11-22, [Reintroduce hir::ExprKind::If](rust-lang/rust#79328)
* On 2020-12-24, [Introduce hir::ExprKind::Let - Take 2](rust-lang/rust#80357)
* On 2021-02-19, [Lower condition of if expression before it's "then" block](rust-lang/rust#82308)
* On 2021-09-01, [Fix drop handling for `if let` expressions](rust-lang/rust#88572)
* On 2021-09-04, [Formally implement let chains](rust-lang/rust#88642)
* On 2022-01-19, [Add tests to ensure that let_chains works with if_let_guard](rust-lang/rust#93086)
* On 2022-01-18, [Introduce `enhanced_binary_op` feature](rust-lang/rust#93049)
* On 2022-01-22, [Fix `let_chains` and `if_let_guard` feature flags](rust-lang/rust#93213)
* On 2022-02-25, [Initiate the inner usage of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94376)
* On 2022-01-28, [[WIP] Introduce ast::StmtKind::LetElse to allow the usage of `let_else` with `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#93437)
* On 2022-02-26, [1 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94396)
* On 2022-02-26, [2 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94400)
* On 2022-02-27, [3 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94420)
* On 2022-02-28, [4 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94445)
* On 2022-02-28, [5 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94448)
* On 2022-02-28, [6 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94465)
* On 2022-03-01, [7 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94476)
* On 2022-03-01, [8 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94484)
* On 2022-03-01, [9 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94498)
* On 2022-03-08, [Warn users about `||` in let chain expressions](rust-lang/rust#94754)

From the first RFC (2017-12-24) to the theoretical future stabilization day (2022-10-22), it can be said that this feature took 4 years, 9 months and 28 days of research, development, discussions, agreements and headaches to be settled.

## Divergent non-terminal matchers

More specifically, rust-lang/rust#86730.

```rust
macro_rules! mac {
    ($e:expr) => {
        if $e {
            true
        } else {
            false
        }
    };
}

fn main() {
    // OK!
    assert_eq!(mac!(true && let 1 = 1), true);

    // ERROR! Anything starting with `let` is not considered an expression
    assert_eq!(mac!(let 1 = 1 && true), true);
}
```

To the best of my knowledge, such error or divergence is orthogonal, does not prevent stabilization and can be tackled independently in the near future or effectively in the next Rust 2024 edition. If not, then https://github.com/c410-f3r/rust/tree/let-macro-blah contains a set of changes that will consider `let` an expression.

It is possible that none of the solutions above satisfies all applicable constraints but I personally don't know of any other plausible answers.

## Alternative syntax

Taking into account the usefulness of this feature and the overwhelming desire to use both now and in the past, `let PAT = EXPR` will be utilized for stabilization but it doesn't or shall create any obstacle for a **possible** future addition of `EXPR is PAT`.

The introductory snippet would then be written as the following.

```rust
if first_flower is Flower::Rose
    && first_flower_color is Color::Red
    && second_flower is Flower::Violet
    && second_flower_color is Color::Blue
    && pick_up_lines is &[first_pick_up_line, ..]
{
    println!("Roses are red, violets are blue, {}", first_pick_up_line);
}
```

Just to reinforce, this PR only unblocks a **possible** future road for `EXPR is PAT` and does emphasize what is better or what is worse.

## Tests

* [Verifies the drop order of let chains and ensures it won't change in the future in an unpredictable way](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/mir/mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs)

* [AST lowering does not wrap let chains in an `DropTemps` expression](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs)

* [Checks pretty printing output](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-pretty-check.rs)

* [Verifies uninitialized variables due to MIR modifications](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/chains-without-let.rs)

* [A collection of statements where `let` expressions are forbidden](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs)

* [All or at least most of the places where let chains are allowed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/feature-gate.rs)

* [Ensures that irrefutable lets are allowed in let chains](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/irrefutable-lets.rs)

* [issue-88498.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-88498.rs), [issue-90722.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-90722.rs), [issue-92145.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-92145.rs) and [issue-93150.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-93150.rs) were bugs found by third parties and fixed overtime.

* [Indexing was triggering a ICE due to a wrongly constructed MIR graph](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/no-double-assigments.rs)

* [Protects the precedence of `&&` in relation to other things](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/protect-precedences.rs)

* [`let_chains`, as well as `if_let_guard`, has a valid MIR graph that evaluates conditional expressions correctly](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/then-else-blocks.rs)

Most of the infra-structure used by let chains is also used by `if` expressions in stable compiler versions since rust-lang/rust#80357 and rust-lang/rust#88572. As a result, no bugs were found since the integration of rust-lang/rust#88642.

## Possible future work

* Let chains in match guards is implemented and working but stabilization is blocked by `if_let_guard`.

* The usage of `let_chains` with `let_else` is possible but not implemented. Regardless, one attempt was introduced and closed in rust-lang/rust#93437.

Thanks `@Centril` for creating the RFC and huge thanks (again) to `@matthewjasper` for all the reviews, mentoring and MIR implementations.

Fixes #53667
GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 7, 2024
…jasper

Don't pass a break scope to `Builder::break_for_else`

This method would previously take a target scope, and then verify that it was equal to the scope on top of the if-then scope stack.

In practice, this means that callers have to go out of their way to pass around redundant scope information that's already on the if-then stack.

So it's easier to just retrieve the correct scope directly from the if-then stack, and simplify the other code that was passing it around.

---

Both ways of indicating the break target were introduced in rust-lang#88572. I haven't been able to find any strong indication of whether this was done deliberately, or whether it was just an implementation artifact. But to me it doesn't seem useful to carefully pass around the same scope in two different ways.
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 8, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#122137 - Zalathar:if-break-scope, r=matthewjasper

Don't pass a break scope to `Builder::break_for_else`

This method would previously take a target scope, and then verify that it was equal to the scope on top of the if-then scope stack.

In practice, this means that callers have to go out of their way to pass around redundant scope information that's already on the if-then stack.

So it's easier to just retrieve the correct scope directly from the if-then stack, and simplify the other code that was passing it around.

---

Both ways of indicating the break target were introduced in rust-lang#88572. I haven't been able to find any strong indication of whether this was done deliberately, or whether it was just an implementation artifact. But to me it doesn't seem useful to carefully pass around the same scope in two different ways.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Regression ICE - broken MIR under -C opt-level=s on if let Some(v) = None as Option<...>
10 participants