[breaking batch] remove the sign from integer literals in the ast

[oli-obk]

r? @eddyb

[rust-highfive]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @eddyb (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

[eddyb]

Shouldn't lit be returned early if the value is positive?

[oli-obk]

indeed. fixed it

[eddyb]

LGTM. r? @Manishearth for confirmal of acceptable breakage.

[Manishearth]

This will likely cause aster breakage. I'm mostly okay with the clippy breakage this may cause (there's not much using this)

[Manishearth]

cc @erickt @nrc

We might want to batch this up with other syntax breaking changes

[nrc]

What's the motivation for this work?

Seems like a good change to make to the HIR, not sure if it is a good change for the AST - does this conflate different source situations? (-5 vs - 5 or anything).

At the least, this should be batched with other changes.

[eddyb]

@nrc Rust doesn't have -5 literals and the AST was misrepresenting that fact.

[oli-obk]

The only way to get a -5 literal was to create it in a compiler plugin. So I'm not even sure if the current trans code did what it was supposed to, but it was also hard to check whether it did. The HIR could potentially fold ExprUnary(Neg, Lit) into some kind of signed literal.

[nrc]

@eddyb as in, the sign field in the int lit types was always Plus (except with syntax extensions)?

[nrc]

In which case, this sounds like a good change, but I'd still like to see it batched with other changes since it is non-urgent.

[Manishearth]

Should we add some kind of github label for these PRs so it's easy to find them when we need to batch up? plugins-breaking or something

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #30826) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[pnkfelix]

@Manishearth

I vote for "breaking-batch"

(Apologies to Walter White)

[steveklabnik]

This has been rebased, is it ready to go?

[Manishearth]

@oli-obk want to uplift this to the mega-breaking-batch PR? Since that will probably bitrot this when it lands.

[oli-obk]

want to uplift this to the mega-breaking-batch PR? Since that will probably bitrot this when it lands.

already done