[MIR] Change destination accessor to return references #30761
Merged
Conversation
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
nagisa
changed the title
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #30757) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
| @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ pub trait MutVisitor<'tcx> { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| Terminator::Call { ref mut func, ref mut args, ref mut kind } => { | |||
| if let Some(ref mut destination) = kind.destination() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
indeed, this was definitely a bug.
|
r+ but I suspect this conflicted with @michaelwoerister's macroization of the visitor |
Previously it was returning a value, mostly for the two reasons: * Cloning Lvalue is very cheap most of the time (i.e. when Lvalue is not a Projection); * There’s users who want &mut lvalue and there’s users who want &lvalue. Returning a value allows to make either one easier when pattern matching (i.e. Some(ref dest) or Some(ref mut dest)). However, I’m now convinced this is an invalid approach. Namely the users which want a mutable reference may modify the Lvalue in-place, but the changes won’t be reflected in the final MIR, since the Lvalue modified is merely a clone. Instead, we have two accessors `destination` and `destination_mut` which return a reference to the destination in desired mode.
nagisa
force-pushed
the
mir-fix-destination
branch
from
37f4ff0 to
2f86c16
Compare
|
Before #30757 this actually caused a bug in the |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 2f86c16 has been approved by |
nagisa
added a commit
to nagisa/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 9, 2016
…elwoerister Previously it was returning a clone, mostly for the two reasons: * Cloning Lvalue is very cheap most of the time (i.e. when Lvalue is not a Projection); * There’s users who want &mut lvalue and there’s users who want &lvalue. Returning a value allows to make either one easier when pattern matching (i.e. Some(ref dest) or Some(ref mut dest)). However, I’m now convinced this is an invalid approach. Namely the users which want a mutable reference may modify the Lvalue in-place, but the changes won’t be reflected in the final MIR, since the Lvalue modified is merely a clone. Instead, we have two accessors `destination` and `destination_mut` which return a reference to the destination in desired mode. r? @nikomatsakis
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2016
Previously it was returning a clone, mostly for the two reasons: * Cloning Lvalue is very cheap most of the time (i.e. when Lvalue is not a Projection); * There’s users who want &mut lvalue and there’s users who want &lvalue. Returning a value allows to make either one easier when pattern matching (i.e. Some(ref dest) or Some(ref mut dest)). However, I’m now convinced this is an invalid approach. Namely the users which want a mutable reference may modify the Lvalue in-place, but the changes won’t be reflected in the final MIR, since the Lvalue modified is merely a clone. Instead, we have two accessors `destination` and `destination_mut` which return a reference to the destination in desired mode. r? @nikomatsakis
|
@bors: retry force |
nagisa
added a commit
to nagisa/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2016
…elwoerister Previously it was returning a clone, mostly for the two reasons: * Cloning Lvalue is very cheap most of the time (i.e. when Lvalue is not a Projection); * There’s users who want &mut lvalue and there’s users who want &lvalue. Returning a value allows to make either one easier when pattern matching (i.e. Some(ref dest) or Some(ref mut dest)). However, I’m now convinced this is an invalid approach. Namely the users which want a mutable reference may modify the Lvalue in-place, but the changes won’t be reflected in the final MIR, since the Lvalue modified is merely a clone. Instead, we have two accessors `destination` and `destination_mut` which return a reference to the destination in desired mode. r? @nikomatsakis
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Previously it was returning a clone, mostly for the two reasons:
to make either one easier when pattern matching (i.e. Some(ref dest) or Some(ref mut dest)).
However, I’m now convinced this is an invalid approach. Namely the users which want a mutable
reference may modify the Lvalue in-place, but the changes won’t be reflected in the final MIR,
since the Lvalue modified is merely a clone.
Instead, we have two accessors
destinationanddestination_mutwhich return a reference to thedestination in desired mode.
r? @nikomatsakis