-
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
Normalize labeled and unlabeled breaks #39864
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
5205e2f
Normalize labeled and unlabeled breaks
cramertj 4d65622
Properly implement labeled breaks in while conditions
cramertj 56e519d
Add tests for control flow in while condition
cramertj a611bbc
Rename hir::Label to hir::Destination
cramertj 6f0447b
Change break or continue with no label to error nmbr 590
cramertj File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Maybe we should make this an
Option<Vec<NodeId>>
? then it can start asNone
, andwith_new_loop_scopes
can insertSome(vec![])
. This would ensure that all loop scope manipulation happens within the context of awith_new_loop_scopes()
call (but other calls, such aswith_loop_scope
, would want to either ignoreNone
or fail withbug!
; not sure which). Do you think this makes sense?Context is that I always get a bit nervous about the possibility of latent bugs where we are pushing loop scopes and things in places we don't expect and those pushes never get observed. I guess since the
loops
pass comes later and looks for surprises, this isn't such a big concern here, so maybe it's not worth the effort.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.
I don't think it needs to be
None
, since in both of the cases its used, its absence will be obvious:.last()
will returnNone
Both of these result in
DUMMY_NODE_ID
.