rust-lang / rust

Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.
https://www.rust-lang.org
Other
97.95k stars 12.68k forks source link

[RFC] Refactor types to be a `(TypeCore, Substs)` pair #42340

Open nikomatsakis opened 7 years ago

nikomatsakis commented 7 years ago

Currently, the Ty<'tcx> type is a reference to a struct (&TyS) that packages up a big ol' enum TypeVariants. As part of chalkification, we would like to be able to write more efficient "decision tree" like procedures that branch on this type. This would be made nicer by factoring out the type into two parts, a "core" and a "substs". This core would be roughly equivalent to the existing TypeVariants, but without the recursive references to other types, which would be uniformly packaged up in the substs.

Thus I imagine that the TyS struct would change to something like this:

pub struct TyS<'tcx> {
    pub sty: TypeVariants<'tcx>, // this is the "core" part
    pub substs: &'tcx Substs<'tcx>, // this is the "substs" part, extracted from `TypeVariants`
    pub flags: TypeFlags,

    // the maximal depth of any bound regions appearing in this type.
    region_depth: u32,
}

(Incidentally, this new notion of TypeVariants could maybe subsume the existing SimplifiedType, though that's not super important.)

Steps

This transition is best made in steps:

Unknowns

It's not 100% clear that this is a good plan, though the individual refactorings above all seem like good steps regardless. Some complicating factors:

cc @eddyb, who first suggested this to me cc @tschottdorf, who implemented #42297, a step along this path (and an important step for ATC regardless)

tbg commented 7 years ago

just a heads up - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42171 isn't closed yet (only half of it), though I'm planning on getting to the other half this week.

nikomatsakis commented 7 years ago

@tschottdorf ah yeah, I was thinking of the "check" as "in progress", but ... seems fine

eddyb commented 5 years ago

Existential types carry where-clauses

Could they be moved to the binder? dyn Foo -> dyn<X: Foo> X would result in Ty::Dyn having all the information in the binder and then substs would have just an anonymous type variable (bound at the aforementioned binder) or be empty for now.

csmoe commented 5 years ago

@nikomatsakis @eddyb not sure whether this issue should be closed or not. How about those Unknowns? (If needed, I have a lot of brandwidth to volunteer).

eddyb commented 5 years ago

This isn't done, the checkboxes were only for prerequisites, I think.