Move next node ID to Resolver #66072
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
cc @petrochenkov -- this is hopefully "obviously correct" but I could imagine us actually wanting to embed the field somewhere other than resolver, I'm not sure. Happy to move it further back or something else. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Mark-Simulacrum
force-pushed
the
next-node-id
branch
from
eadf82a to
60d5f4f
Compare
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Centril
reviewed
Nov 4, 2019
| @@ -3286,7 +3290,7 @@ impl<'a> LoweringContext<'a> { | |||
| span, | |||
| "expected 'implicit elided lifetime not allowed' error", | |||
| ); | |||
| let id = self.sess.next_node_id(); | |||
| let id = self.resolver.next_node_id(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we add a method next_node_id on LoweringContext that just delegates to self.resolver so that the diff becomes smaller in case we want to move it again some time?
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn parse_pretty( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Aw :( -- Ideally we should move stuff out of librustc instead of the other direction... perhaps we can move most of this file out of librustc...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine to do so but it's also a pretty involved change (perhaps we want to create a librustc_pretty or something) -- I don't think it should be done in this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea; didn't mean in this PR. :)
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #65835) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Mark-Simulacrum
force-pushed
the
next-node-id
branch
from
60d5f4f to
5bbcd85
Compare
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Mark-Simulacrum
force-pushed
the
next-node-id
branch
from
181fafa to
85f08b5
Compare
nikomatsakis
approved these changes
Nov 8, 2019
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 85f08b5 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 8, 2019
…omatsakis Move next node ID to Resolver This moves the `next_node_id` method(s) and related tracking information to the resolver. By doing so, we also remove the OneThread and Cell on next_node_id in Session in this move, which means that the new code is simpler and less "interesting" as it doesn't tie itself to a single thread. This required moving some of the pretty-printing logic around, but this was just copying the code without any semantic changes, so it's just a second commit instead of a separate PR; I can polish it up a bit more if desired.
|
Failed in #66231 (comment), @bors r- |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
This doesn't migrate the pretty-printing everybody loops, which will be done in the next few commits.
This allows us to query whether PpmEveryBodyLoops is set during expansion and run the everybody loops pass.
This function was only ever called with 1 so there's little point in it; this isn't an expensive operation (essentially a checked add) so we're not really "reserving" anything either.
Mark-Simulacrum
force-pushed
the
next-node-id
branch
from
85f08b5 to
43a7405
Compare
|
@bors r=nikomatsakis |
|
📌 Commit 43a7405 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 10, 2019
Move next node ID to Resolver This moves the `next_node_id` method(s) and related tracking information to the resolver. By doing so, we also remove the OneThread and Cell on next_node_id in Session in this move, which means that the new code is simpler and less "interesting" as it doesn't tie itself to a single thread. This required moving some of the pretty-printing logic around, but this was just copying the code without any semantic changes, so it's just a second commit instead of a separate PR; I can polish it up a bit more if desired.
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This moves the
next_node_idmethod(s) and related tracking information to the resolver. By doing so, we also remove the OneThread and Cell on next_node_id in Session in this move, which means that the new code is simpler and less "interesting" as it doesn't tie itself to a single thread.This required moving some of the pretty-printing logic around, but this was just copying the code without any semantic changes, so it's just a second commit instead of a separate PR; I can polish it up a bit more if desired.