Match scrutinee need necessary parentheses for structs

[chenyukang]

Fixes #113459

[rustbot]

r? @TaKO8Ki

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[lukas-code]

This fix looks insufficient for chained operators, for example this still triggers the lint:

struct Foo {}

fn main() {
    match (&&Foo {}) {
        _ => {}
    }
}

I think the correct fix is to add a case for AddrOf to contains_exterior_struct_lit here:

rust/compiler/rustc_ast/src/util/parser.rs

Lines 388 to 396 in fe03b46

	ast::ExprKind::Await(x, _)
	| ast::ExprKind::Unary(_, x)
	| ast::ExprKind::Cast(x, _)
	| ast::ExprKind::Type(x, _)
	| ast::ExprKind::Field(x, _)
	| ast::ExprKind::Index(x, _) => {
	// &X { y: 1 }, X { y: 1 }.y
	contains_exterior_struct_lit(x)
	}

[chenyukang]

@bors r=cjgillot

[bors]

📌 Commit fa9d5e7 has been approved by cjgillot

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit fa9d5e7 with merge c2d4b0fd01ca8b5b1acd7e99ede9ba14d7578afe...

[bors]

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

[chenyukang]

@matthiaskrgr
do you know the reason for this failure?
from the log seems it's not caused by code change.

[matthiaskrgr]

my first thought was that perhaps since the 2 weeks the PR was opened, some other changes went in or additional tests were added which the first version of the pr did not account for, but I didn't look at it in very detail.

[chenyukang]

I rebased to master yesterday, let me rebase it again to have a try.
The log don't have too much info about the error:
#113679 (comment)

[cjgillot]

The error is a SIGSEGV on one of the apple builders. Let's try again, see if it's a legitimate failure.
@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit eb10728643010ce1a95ecea2a7ac5291dc6958ed has been approved by cjgillot

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit eb10728643010ce1a95ecea2a7ac5291dc6958ed with merge f933bc7a2f16deeccd550634d5744ce0a76c16aa...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing f933bc7a2f16deeccd550634d5744ce0a76c16aa to master...

[bors]

👀 Test was successful, but fast-forwarding failed: 422 Update is not a fast forward

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (f933bc7a2f16deeccd550634d5744ce0a76c16aa): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.3%, -0.4%]	44
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.9%, -0.2%]	14
All ❌✅ (primary)	-0.7%	[-1.3%, -0.4%]	44

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-3.6%, -3.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 650.779s -> 652.03s (0.19%)

[klensy]

So, it isn't merged?

[chenyukang]

yes, seems failed in merging.

[chenyukang]

@matthiaskrgr
could you please help me with this PR,
seems it's tested successfully, but it's left un-merged because of the issue of:

 Test was successful, but fast-forwarding failed: 422 Update is not a fast forward

[matthiaskrgr]

@bors retry

[workingjubilee]

uhh.

[workingjubilee]

According to homu, this isn't actually approved.
I am thus reapproving it.

@bors r=cjgillot rollup=never

[bors]

📌 Commit c44b35e has been approved by cjgillot

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit c44b35e with merge d7e7510...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing d7e7510 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (d7e7510): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.1%	[1.8%, 6.2%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.0%	[-2.0%, -2.0%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 632.706s -> 631.44s (-0.20%)
Artifact size: 346.54 MiB -> 346.64 MiB (0.03%)