MGCA: pretty printing for struct expressions and tuple calls by Kivooeo · Pull Request #150695 · rust-lang/rust

Kivooeo · 2026-01-05T09:13:15Z

not sure

if there any tests that i need to adjust
if i should add any test for it
if humanity has come up with anything better than checking if that's first iteration or not with flag when printing sequences with separator

in case there is no tests for it and i dont have to add any, there is a demonstration of this ✨ pretty ✨ printing (this is output from -Z unpretty=hir)

fn test_errors<const N:
    usize>() {
    // accepts_enum::<{ None::<u32> }>();
    accepts_point::<Point1 { a: N, b: N }>();
    accepts_point::<Point(N, N)>();
}

btw it does not print const block

for this

accepts_point::<{ Point1 { a: const {N + 1}, b: N } }>();

it will print

accepts_point::<Point1 { a: { N + 1 }, b: N }>();

not sure if we want to print const blocks or not

r? BoxyUwU

rustbot · 2026-01-05T09:13:20Z

BoxyUwU is currently at their maximum review capacity.
They may take a while to respond.

BoxyUwU

You should be able to use self.commasep to do the comma delimited lists with handling of omitting the comma if its only one element.

View changes since this review

BoxyUwU · 2026-01-05T14:17:58Z

compiler/rustc_hir_pretty/src/lib.rs

@@ -1138,15 +1138,58 @@ impl<'a> State<'a> {
    fn print_const_arg(&mut self, const_arg: &hir::ConstArg<'_>) {
        match &const_arg.kind {
            // FIXME(mgca): proper printing for struct exprs


remove fixme :3

BoxyUwU · 2026-01-05T14:29:17Z

I think we probably do want to print const blocks 🤔 The best way to accomplish that is likely to change the printing for ConstArgKind::Anon to do emit const under mgca

BoxyUwU · 2026-01-05T14:31:25Z

I think you can write a test for this by adding //@ compile-flags: -Zunpretty=hir

Kivooeo · 2026-01-05T16:02:50Z

I think we probably do want to print const blocks 🤔 The best way to accomplish that is likely to change the printing for ConstArgKind::Anon to do emit const under mgca

not sure about how to make it yet, will take a look for it a bit later, for now just added a test and rewrited with self.commasep

tests/ui/unpretty/struct-exprs-tuple-call-pretty-printing.rs

BoxyUwU · 2026-01-05T23:38:46Z

thanks

@bors r+ rollup

bors · 2026-01-05T23:38:49Z

📌 Commit 85c8e41 has been approved by BoxyUwU

It is now in the queue for this repository.

MGCA: pretty printing for struct expressions and tuple calls not sure 1. if there any tests that i need to adjust 2. if i should add any test for it 3. if humanity has come up with anything better than checking if that's first iteration or not with flag when printing sequences with separator in case there is no tests for it and i dont have to add any, there is a demonstration of this ✨ pretty ✨ printing (this is output from `-Z unpretty=hir`) ``` fn test_errors<const N: usize>() { // accepts_enum::<{ None::<u32> }>(); accepts_point::<Point1 { a: N, b: N }>(); accepts_point::<Point(N, N)>(); } ``` btw it does not print const block for this ``` accepts_point::<{ Point1 { a: const {N + 1}, b: N } }>(); ``` it will print ``` accepts_point::<Point1 { a: { N + 1 }, b: N }>(); ``` not sure if we want to print const blocks or not r? BoxyUwU

Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #144113 (Impls and impl items inherit `dead_code` lint level of the corresponding traits and trait items) - #149880 (rustc_codegen_llvm: update alignment for double on AIX) - #150668 (Unix implementation for stdio set/take/replace) - #150670 (THIR pattern building: Move all `thir::Pat` creation into `rustc_mir_build::thir::pattern`) - #150695 (MGCA: pretty printing for struct expressions and tuple calls ) - #150698 (Improve comment clarity in candidate_may_shadow) - #150706 (Update wasm-component-ld) - #150710 (Update libc dependency of std) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

MGCA: pretty printing for struct expressions and tuple calls not sure 1. if there any tests that i need to adjust 2. if i should add any test for it 3. if humanity has come up with anything better than checking if that's first iteration or not with flag when printing sequences with separator in case there is no tests for it and i dont have to add any, there is a demonstration of this ✨ pretty ✨ printing (this is output from `-Z unpretty=hir`) ``` fn test_errors<const N: usize>() { // accepts_enum::<{ None::<u32> }>(); accepts_point::<Point1 { a: N, b: N }>(); accepts_point::<Point(N, N)>(); } ``` btw it does not print const block for this ``` accepts_point::<{ Point1 { a: const {N + 1}, b: N } }>(); ``` it will print ``` accepts_point::<Point1 { a: { N + 1 }, b: N }>(); ``` not sure if we want to print const blocks or not r? BoxyUwU

Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #144113 (Impls and impl items inherit `dead_code` lint level of the corresponding traits and trait items) - #149880 (rustc_codegen_llvm: update alignment for double on AIX) - #150412 (use PIDFD_GET_INFO ioctl when available) - #150668 (Unix implementation for stdio set/take/replace) - #150670 (THIR pattern building: Move all `thir::Pat` creation into `rustc_mir_build::thir::pattern`) - #150695 (MGCA: pretty printing for struct expressions and tuple calls ) - #150698 (Improve comment clarity in candidate_may_shadow) - #150706 (Update wasm-component-ld) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

MGCA: pretty printing for struct expressions and tuple calls not sure 1. if there any tests that i need to adjust 2. if i should add any test for it 3. if humanity has come up with anything better than checking if that's first iteration or not with flag when printing sequences with separator in case there is no tests for it and i dont have to add any, there is a demonstration of this ✨ pretty ✨ printing (this is output from `-Z unpretty=hir`) ``` fn test_errors<const N: usize>() { // accepts_enum::<{ None::<u32> }>(); accepts_point::<Point1 { a: N, b: N }>(); accepts_point::<Point(N, N)>(); } ``` btw it does not print const block for this ``` accepts_point::<{ Point1 { a: const {N + 1}, b: N } }>(); ``` it will print ``` accepts_point::<Point1 { a: { N + 1 }, b: N }>(); ``` not sure if we want to print const blocks or not r? BoxyUwU

…uwer Rollup of 11 pull requests Successful merges: - #144113 (Impls and impl items inherit `dead_code` lint level of the corresponding traits and trait items) - #148339 (naked functions: emit `.private_extern` on macos) - #149880 (rustc_codegen_llvm: update alignment for double on AIX) - #150122 (Refactor function names of `rustc_ast_lowering`) - #150412 (use PIDFD_GET_INFO ioctl when available) - #150670 (THIR pattern building: Move all `thir::Pat` creation into `rustc_mir_build::thir::pattern`) - #150695 (MGCA: pretty printing for struct expressions and tuple calls ) - #150698 (Improve comment clarity in candidate_may_shadow) - #150706 (Update wasm-component-ld) - #150707 (Fix ICE when transmute Assume field is invalid) - #150708 (Enable merge queue in new bors) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

Rollup of 11 pull requests Successful merges: - #144113 (Impls and impl items inherit `dead_code` lint level of the corresponding traits and trait items) - #148339 (naked functions: emit `.private_extern` on macos) - #149880 (rustc_codegen_llvm: update alignment for double on AIX) - #150122 (Refactor function names of `rustc_ast_lowering`) - #150412 (use PIDFD_GET_INFO ioctl when available) - #150670 (THIR pattern building: Move all `thir::Pat` creation into `rustc_mir_build::thir::pattern`) - #150695 (MGCA: pretty printing for struct expressions and tuple calls ) - #150698 (Improve comment clarity in candidate_may_shadow) - #150706 (Update wasm-component-ld) - #150707 (Fix ICE when transmute Assume field is invalid) - #150708 (Enable merge queue in new bors) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

…uwer Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - #144113 (Impls and impl items inherit `dead_code` lint level of the corresponding traits and trait items) - #149880 (rustc_codegen_llvm: update alignment for double on AIX) - #150122 (Refactor function names of `rustc_ast_lowering`) - #150412 (use PIDFD_GET_INFO ioctl when available) - #150670 (THIR pattern building: Move all `thir::Pat` creation into `rustc_mir_build::thir::pattern`) - #150695 (MGCA: pretty printing for struct expressions and tuple calls ) - #150698 (Improve comment clarity in candidate_may_shadow) - #150706 (Update wasm-component-ld) - #150707 (Fix ICE when transmute Assume field is invalid) - #150708 (Enable merge queue in new bors) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

Rollup merge of #150695 - Kivooeo:pretty-printing, r=BoxyUwU MGCA: pretty printing for struct expressions and tuple calls not sure 1. if there any tests that i need to adjust 2. if i should add any test for it 3. if humanity has come up with anything better than checking if that's first iteration or not with flag when printing sequences with separator in case there is no tests for it and i dont have to add any, there is a demonstration of this ✨ pretty ✨ printing (this is output from `-Z unpretty=hir`) ``` fn test_errors<const N: usize>() { // accepts_enum::<{ None::<u32> }>(); accepts_point::<Point1 { a: N, b: N }>(); accepts_point::<Point(N, N)>(); } ``` btw it does not print const block for this ``` accepts_point::<{ Point1 { a: const {N + 1}, b: N } }>(); ``` it will print ``` accepts_point::<Point1 { a: { N + 1 }, b: N }>(); ``` not sure if we want to print const blocks or not r? BoxyUwU

rustbot assigned BoxyUwU Jan 5, 2026

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 Jan 5, 2026

BoxyUwU reviewed Jan 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

rust-cloud-vms bot force-pushed the pretty-printing branch from 77f1280 to 1e11627 Compare January 5, 2026 16:01

BoxyUwU reviewed Jan 5, 2026

View reviewed changes

tests/ui/unpretty/struct-exprs-tuple-call-pretty-printing.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

add pretty printing

85c8e41

rust-cloud-vms bot force-pushed the pretty-printing branch from 1e11627 to 85c8e41 Compare January 5, 2026 21:58

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 5, 2026

BoxyUwU mentioned this pull request Jan 5, 2026

Tracking Issue for Generic Constant Arguments MVP #132980

Open

29 tasks

Zalathar mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2026

Rollup of 8 pull requests #150718

Closed

Zalathar mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2026

Rollup of 8 pull requests #150719

Closed

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2026

Rollup of 11 pull requests #150724

Closed

JonathanBrouwer mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2026

Rollup of 10 pull requests #150726

Merged

bors merged commit dd08360 into rust-lang:main Jan 6, 2026
11 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.94.0 milestone Jan 6, 2026

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2026

Toolchain upgrade to nightly-2026-02-07 flux-rs/flux#1345

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

MGCA: pretty printing for struct expressions and tuple calls #150695

MGCA: pretty printing for struct expressions and tuple calls #150695
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:mainfrom
Kivooeo:pretty-printing

Kivooeo commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU left a comment •

edited by rustbot

Loading

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Kivooeo commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

Kivooeo commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU left a comment • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU Jan 5, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Kivooeo commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

BoxyUwU commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

BoxyUwU left a comment •

edited by rustbot

Loading