-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.2k
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
Add #[loop_match]
for improved DFA codegen
#138780
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add #[loop_match]
for improved DFA codegen
#138780
Conversation
Some changes occurred in match checking cc @Nadrieril Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_passes/src/check_attr.rs Some changes occurred in cc @BoxyUwU |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @folkertdev for putting up this PR. The big picture looks right, in terms of the behavior of the tests and how to approach the experiment in terms of starting with the attributes for thiis.
This is a first partial pass on the details.
@rustbot author
@@ -244,6 +248,188 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> Builder<'a, 'tcx> { | |||
None | |||
}) | |||
} | |||
ExprKind::LoopMatch { state, region_scope, ref arms, .. } => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Probably the body of this match arm should be broken out and located elsewhere, in the same way that match_expr
is, and should have a substantial doc comment above it, like match_expr
does.
let rustc_middle::thir::ExprKind::Scope { value, .. } = | ||
self.thir[value.unwrap()].kind | ||
else { | ||
panic!(); | ||
}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If this is unreachable, it's worth marking it that way. Either way, it's worth a comment about this.
//let is_coroutine = this.coroutine.is_some(); | ||
|
||
/*// Link the exit drop tree to unwind drop tree. | ||
if drops.drops.iter().any(|drop_node| drop_node.data.kind == DropKind::Value) { | ||
let unwind_target = this.diverge_cleanup_target(region_scope, span); | ||
let mut unwind_indices = IndexVec::from_elem_n(unwind_target, 1); | ||
for (drop_idx, drop_node) in drops.drops.iter_enumerated().skip(1) { | ||
match drop_node.data.kind { | ||
DropKind::Storage | DropKind::ForLint => { | ||
if is_coroutine { | ||
let unwind_drop = this.scopes.unwind_drops.add_drop( | ||
drop_node.data, | ||
unwind_indices[drop_node.next], | ||
); | ||
unwind_indices.push(unwind_drop); | ||
} else { | ||
unwind_indices.push(unwind_indices[drop_node.next]); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
DropKind::Value => { | ||
let unwind_drop = this | ||
.scopes | ||
.unwind_drops | ||
.add_drop(drop_node.data, unwind_indices[drop_node.next]); | ||
this.scopes.unwind_drops.add_entry_point( | ||
blocks[drop_idx].unwrap(), | ||
unwind_indices[drop_node.next], | ||
); | ||
unwind_indices.push(unwind_drop); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
}*/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What's the story here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Dropping the rest of the local variables when unwinding out of drops on #[const_continue]
isn't implemented yet.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the detailed review!
I've fixed a bunch of the low-hanging fruit (e.g. in the tests). For the actual pattern matching logic, I have a branch with what I believe is a better solution that re-uses more existing pattern matching infra. We'll come back to that here once björn has had a chance to look at it.
Some changes occurred in exhaustiveness checking cc @Nadrieril Some changes occurred in match lowering cc @Nadrieril |
ExprKind::ConstContinue { label, value } => this.break_scope( | ||
block, | ||
Some(value), | ||
BreakableTarget::ConstContinue(label), | ||
source_info, | ||
), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@bjorn3 just noticing, this should probably get its own function. it does not really share any logic with the others in break_scope
at all (currently anyway)
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #138974) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Co-authored-by: Folkert de Vries <folkert@folkertdev.nl>
Co-authored-by: Travis Cross <tc@traviscross.com>
368f722
to
a89dcbe
Compare
tracking issue: #138777
project goal: rust-lang/rust-project-goals#258
This PR adds the
#[loop_match]
attribute, which aims to improve code generation for state machines. For some (very exciting) benchmarks, see rust-lang/rust-project-goals#258 (comment)Currently, a very restricted syntax pattern is accepted. We'd like to get feedback and merge this now before we go too far in a direction that others have concerns with.
current state
We accept code that looks like this
#[loop_match]
: normalcontinue
andbreak
continue to work#[const_continue] is only allowed in loops annotated with
#[loop_match]`future work
break
valuemaybe future work
continue 'label value
syntax, which#[const_continue]
could then use.State::Initial
)break
/continue
expressions that are not marked with#[const_continue]
r? @traviscross