Clean up AST visitor some more by nnethercote · Pull Request #162315 · rust-lang/rust

nnethercote · 2026-09-04T23:07:57Z

View all comments

A sequel to #162226. Details in individual commits.

r? @fee1-dead

nnethercote · 2026-09-04T23:08:13Z

LLM disclosure: most of these clean-ups were suggested by an LLM. I made all the code and text changes myself.

nnethercote · 2026-09-04T23:08:57Z

Shouldn't affect perf, but just in case:

@bors try @rust-timer queue

…=<try> Clean up AST visitor some more

rust-bors · 2026-09-05T05:09:39Z

💥 Test timed out after 21600s

nnethercote · 2026-09-05T06:07:54Z

💥 Test timed out after 21600s

Not sure what happened. Let's try again:

@bors try @rust-timer queue

…=<try> Clean up AST visitor some more

rust-bors · 2026-09-05T11:42:13Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: d804d79 (d804d7975d767ccd03c93b9f34541ae4bc41c8ee)
Base parent: 0ed41eb (0ed41eb4142dda2df61eb1145a312c1a9d62eb56)

rust-timer · 2026-09-05T12:25:39Z

Finished benchmarking commit (d804d79): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. It's automatically marked not fit for rolling up. Overriding is possible but disadvised: it risks changing compiler perf.

Next, please: If you can, justify the regressions found in this try perf run in writing along with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged. If not, fix the regressions and do another perf run. Neutral or positive results will clear the label automatically.

@bors rollup=never rustc-perf
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

Our most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	7
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.1%	[-0.1%, -0.1%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.3%]	7

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 2.2%, secondary 6.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	7.7%	[7.7%, 7.7%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	6.8%	[6.8%, 6.8%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-3.3%	[-3.3%, -3.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.2%	[-3.3%, 7.7%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary -2.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

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

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 476.718s -> 480.953s (0.89%)
Artifact size: 403.29 MiB -> 403.40 MiB (0.03%)

nnethercote · 2026-09-05T13:16:56Z

Slight regressions on html5ever. I'll investigate on Monday.

`visit_test_binder_constraints` is the only `visit_foo` method in `impl_visitable_calling_walkable!` without a corresponding `walk_foo` method in `define_named_walk!`. I confirmed with the original author (khyperia) that this is an unintentional oversight.

There is currently a big list of `visit_*` methods in one macro call and another list of `walk_*` method in another macro call. The previous commit showed these can unintentionally get out of sync. This commit introduces a higher-order macro that puts all the information in a single place. This will make it impossible for the `visit_*` and `walk_*` methods to get out of sync (as we saw in the previous commit). It will also facilitate another cleanup in the next commit.

Currently various `Visitable` impls are defined within functions even though `Visitable` is defined at the top level, which is weird and requires `allow(non_local_definitions)`. This commit uses `for_each_ast_visit_hook` to move them out. It also renames a couple of the existing macros to give them simpler names.

Use `$ty` and `$extra` and `$extra_ty` consistently in macros, rather than `$Ty` and `$ExtraTy` and `$ParamTy`. Also fix some spacing.

They fit the pattern. Also remove `#[inline]` from `impl_visitable_list` for consistency. The visitor is generic so the methods are monomorphized into the calling crate and probably inlined anyway.

The AST visitor code uses `($($extra_ty)?)` which expands to `()` in some cases and `(T)` in others, which requires `allow(unused_parens)` to avoid warnings. This commit splits the two `impl_visitable!` macros into two rules: one for the "no-extra" case and one for the "with-extra" case. There's a small amount of duplication between the two rules but there are multiple advantages. - The `allow(unused_parens)` is removed. - `impl_visitable!` callers can omit the extra param if it's `()`. - When the extra argument might or might not be present, a more standard `$(, $extra: $extra_ty)?` is now used. - No weird `let ($($extra)?) = extra;` destructuring. The `Visitable` derive also gets a tweak to avoid unnecessary parens around extra args.

These macros aren't needed outside the crate.

We can just hardwire `'a` and `Visitor`/`MutVisitor`. This simplifies the inputs for these macros from "leading thing + repeating elements" to just "repeating elements".

A lot of these lists are already almost in alphabetical order.

nnethercote · 2026-09-06T23:34:50Z

@bors try @rust-timer queue

…=<try> Clean up AST visitor some more

rust-bors · 2026-09-07T00:34:02Z

☀️ Try build successful (CI)
Build commit: e8a15ce (e8a15ced131dd3a6ecc5fe12dbe908486488c1f2)
Base parent: 5a2be9f (5a2be9f5f075d31e3ca5526b5b029881ce441253)

rust-timer · 2026-09-07T01:57:05Z

Finished benchmarking commit (e8a15ce): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking means the PR may be perf-sensitive. Consider adding rollup=never if this change is not fit for rolling up.

@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary 4.9%, secondary 4.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.9%	[2.7%, 7.1%]	2
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.9%	[4.9%, 5.0%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	4.9%	[2.7%, 7.1%]	2

Cycles

Results (secondary 0.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	4.7%	[4.7%, 4.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.6%	[-3.6%, -3.6%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This perf run didn't have relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 476.006s -> 480.221s (0.89%)
Artifact size: 403.41 MiB -> 403.49 MiB (0.02%)

nnethercote · 2026-09-07T04:00:35Z

Regressions fixed with a bit of #[inline]. Ready for review.

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Sep 4, 2026

rustbot assigned fee1-dead Sep 4, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 4, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rust-bors Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 4, 2026

Auto merge of #162315 - nnethercote:clean-up-AST-visitor-some-more, r…

2a4114a

…=<try> Clean up AST visitor some more

rust-bors Bot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Sep 5, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rust-bors Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 5, 2026

Auto merge of #162315 - nnethercote:clean-up-AST-visitor-some-more, r…

d804d79

…=<try> Clean up AST visitor some more

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added perf-regression Performance regression. and removed S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Sep 5, 2026

nnethercote marked this pull request as draft September 5, 2026 13:16

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

nnethercote added 6 commits September 7, 2026 09:02

Improve naming consistency

29b4b1c

Use `$ty` and `$extra` and `$extra_ty` consistently in macros, rather than `$Ty` and `$ExtraTy` and `$ParamTy`. Also fix some spacing.

Use impl_visitable! for the generate_*_fns macros

a15317e

They fit the pattern. Also remove `#[inline]` from `impl_visitable_list` for consistency. The visitor is generic so the methods are monomorphized into the calling crate and probably inlined anyway.

nnethercote added 4 commits September 7, 2026 09:07

Avoid #[macro_export]

de336bc

These macros aren't needed outside the crate.

Don't pass in $Visitor/$lt to various macros

8d4c050

We can just hardwire `'a` and `Visitor`/`MutVisitor`. This simplifies the inputs for these macros from "leading thing + repeating elements" to just "repeating elements".

Use tidy-alphabetical markers on various lists

0d68165

A lot of these lists are already almost in alphabetical order.

Inline visit/visit_mut in impl_visitable

ad3c224

nnethercote force-pushed the clean-up-AST-visitor-some-more branch from f9e5acf to ad3c224 Compare September 6, 2026 23:34

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Sep 6, 2026

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rust-bors Bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 6, 2026

Auto merge of #162315 - nnethercote:clean-up-AST-visitor-some-more, r…

e8a15ce

…=<try> Clean up AST visitor some more

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

rustbot removed perf-regression Performance regression. S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. labels Sep 7, 2026

nnethercote marked this pull request as ready for review September 7, 2026 04:00

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Sep 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

nnethercote commented Sep 4, 2026 • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nnethercote commented Sep 4, 2026

Uh oh!

nnethercote commented Sep 4, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors Bot commented Sep 5, 2026

Uh oh!

nnethercote commented Sep 5, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors Bot commented Sep 5, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Sep 5, 2026

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - please read:

Uh oh!

nnethercote commented Sep 5, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

nnethercote commented Sep 6, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

rust-bors Bot commented Sep 7, 2026

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

rust-timer commented Sep 7, 2026

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Uh oh!

nnethercote commented Sep 7, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

nnethercote commented Sep 4, 2026 •

edited by rustbot

Loading