-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 747
Refactor fallibility of conversions from IR to Rust types #581
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
Refactor fallibility of conversions from IR to Rust types #581
Conversation
src/codegen/mod.rs
Outdated
primitive_ty(ctx, "isize") | ||
} | ||
_ => return None, | ||
}) |
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.
Note to self: remove this leftover from rebasing away a bad cargo fmt
.
Also, I should add the original test case from #573 (comment) to our test suite. |
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.
r=me with the documented variants and the cleaned up rustfmt code.
Thanks!
src/codegen/error.rs
Outdated
/// Errors that can occur during code generation. | ||
#[derive(Clone, Debug, PartialEq, Eq)] | ||
pub enum Error { | ||
NoLayoutForOpaqueBlob, |
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.
Document the variants, please :)
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.
Sure thing :)
|
||
/// Errors that can occur during code generation. | ||
#[derive(Clone, Debug, PartialEq, Eq)] | ||
pub enum Error { |
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.
This seems like an overly generic name for a really specific error kind. I don't have a clearly better name in mind though.
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.
It is namespaced, however. I hope that it can become the error type for all fallible codegen operations.
30267de
to
b312c9c
Compare
@bors-servo r=emilio |
📌 Commit b312c9c has been approved by |
🔒 Merge conflict |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #583) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
The old ToRustTy and ItemToRustTy conversion traits were problematic in that they assumed infallibity. That assumption is problematic because we are often dealing with C++ constructs for which Rust has no equivalent *and* we don't have a usable layout from which to generate an opaque blob in its stead. But, a usable layout is often "up the stack" if only we had a way to get up there. For example, Rust does not currently have an equivalent of const value template parameters, and libclang will not give us a layout for template definitions with const value template parameters. However, libclang will give us the layout for an instantiation of such a template definition. First, this commit separates the concepts of generating an equivalent Rust type from generating an opaque blob of the same size and alignment as an IR thing. This consolidates and DRYs up a *ton* of code involved in falling back to an opaque blob (and doing our best to get a Layout for the blob) when we can't generate an equivalent Rust type for some IR thing. Second, it separates fallible and infallible conversions, and provides a nice little framework for when to choose which. This gives us one single place where we do this whole dance: if could not generate equivalent Rust type: if we have a layout: return opaque blob based on layout else: return opaque blob based on a wish and a prayer The ToRustTy trait is replaced by the TryToOpaque, ToOpaque, TryToRustTyOrOpaque, and ToRustTyOrOpaque traits. The ItemToRustTy helper was just a way to avoid ToRustTy's Self::Extra parameter when it was not needed, and is simply removed without a replacement. We suck it up and pass `&()` at call sites now. We *could* introduce ItemTryToOpaque, ItemToOpaque, etc... traits, but the cost of the added boiler plate would outweigh the benefits of not passing `&()` at call sites, IMHO. In addition to being a nice code cleanup, this also fixes rust-lang#573.
b312c9c
to
92c1a25
Compare
@bors-servo r=emilio |
📌 Commit 92c1a25 has been approved by |
…test-failures, r=emilio Refactor fallibility of conversions from IR to Rust types The old `ToRustTy` and `ItemToRustTy` conversion traits were problematic in that they assumed infallibity. That assumption is problematic because we are often dealing with C++ constructs for which Rust has no equivalent *and* we don't have a usable layout from which to generate an opaque blob in its stead. But, a usable layout is often "up the stack" if only we had a way to get up there. For example, Rust does not currently have an equivalent of const value template parameters, and libclang will not give us a layout for template definitions with const value template parameters. However, libclang will give us the layout for an instantiation of such a template definition. First, this commit separates the concepts of generating an equivalent Rust type from generating an opaque blob of the same size and alignment as an IR thing. This consolidates and DRYs up a *ton* of code involved in falling back to an opaque blob (and doing our best to get a `Layout` for the blob) when we can't generate an equivalent Rust type for some IR thing. Second, it separates fallible and infallible conversions, and provides a nice little framework for when to choose which. This gives us one single place where we do this whole dance: if could not generate equivalent Rust type: if we have a layout: return opaque blob based on layout else: return opaque blob based on a wish and a prayer The `ToRustTy` trait is replaced by the `TryToOpaque`, `ToOpaque`, `TryToRustTyOrOpaque`, and `ToRustTyOrOpaque` traits. The `ItemToRustTy` helper was just a way to avoid `ToRustTy`'s `Self::Extra` parameter when it was not needed, and is simply removed without a replacement. We suck it up and pass `&()` at call sites now. We *could* introduce `ItemTryToOpaque`, `ItemToOpaque`, etc... traits, but the cost of the added boiler plate would outweigh the benefits of not passing `&()` at call sites, IMHO. In addition to being a nice code cleanup, this also fixes #573. r? @emilio
☀️ Test successful - status-travis |
The old
ToRustTy
andItemToRustTy
conversion traits were problematic in that they assumed infallibity. That assumption is problematic because we are often dealing with C++ constructs for which Rust has no equivalent and we don't have a usable layout from which to generate an opaque blob in its stead. But, a usable layout is often "up the stack" if only we had a way to get up there.For example, Rust does not currently have an equivalent of const value template parameters, and libclang will not give us a layout for template definitions with const value template parameters. However, libclang will give us the layout for an instantiation of such a template definition.
First, this commit separates the concepts of generating an equivalent Rust type from generating an opaque blob of the same size and alignment as an IR thing. This consolidates and DRYs up a ton of code involved in falling back to an opaque blob (and doing our best to get a
Layout
for the blob) when we can't generate an equivalent Rust type for some IR thing.Second, it separates fallible and infallible conversions, and provides a nice little framework for when to choose which. This gives us one single place where we do this whole dance:
The
ToRustTy
trait is replaced by theTryToOpaque
,ToOpaque
,TryToRustTyOrOpaque
, andToRustTyOrOpaque
traits. TheItemToRustTy
helper was just a way to avoidToRustTy
'sSelf::Extra
parameter when it was not needed, and is simply removed without a replacement. We suck it up and pass&()
at call sites now. We could introduceItemTryToOpaque
,ItemToOpaque
, etc... traits, but the cost of the added boiler plate would outweigh the benefits of not passing&()
at call sites, IMHO.In addition to being a nice code cleanup, this also fixes #573.
r? @emilio