Use field init shorthand where possible

[joshtriplett]

Field init shorthand allows writing initializers like tcx: tcx as
tcx. The compiler already uses it extensively. Fix the last few places
where it isn't yet used.

EDIT: this PR also updates rustfmt.toml to set
use_field_init_shorthand = true.

[rustbot]

r? @tgross35

rustbot has assigned @tgross35.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[joshtriplett]

r? nnethercote

[tgross35]

r=me unless you wanted a review from nnethercote specifically

[lqd]

This rustfmt setting seems uncontroversial.

If you don't need a review from nick specifically, r=me when CI is green.

[joshtriplett]

@tgross35 @lqd No specific reviewer needed, was just picking based on expected familiarity with the area. Thanks! Will r= when CI is green.

[nnethercote]

👍

[tgross35]

@bors r=lqd,tgross35,nnethercote

[bors]

📌 Commit a105cd6 has been approved by lqd,tgross35,nnethercote

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[RalfJung]

@bors rollup=never

can cause unrelated PRs in the rollup to break

[jieyouxu]

This PR changes rustfmt.toml

[ChrisDenton]

Should use_field_init_shorthand be set by default for style_edition = "2024"?

[klensy]

Should use_field_init_shorthand be set by default for style_edition = "2024"?

I'm stuck, step-reviewer, help me: #129636

[klensy]

Can also apply this diff to make clippy check the same thing. Can be added to this pr or i can send it separately.

diff --git a/src/bootstrap/src/core/build_steps/clippy.rs b/src/bootstrap/src/core/build_steps/clippy.rs
index 0884d86cc6d..4644f31c003 100644
--- a/src/bootstrap/src/core/build_steps/clippy.rs
+++ b/src/bootstrap/src/core/build_steps/clippy.rs
@@ -378,20 +378,24 @@ fn run(self, builder: &Builder<'_>) -> Self::Output {
             config: self.config.merge(&LintConfig {
                 allow: vec![],
                 warn: vec![],
-                deny: vec!["warnings".into()],
+                deny: vec!["clippy::redundant_field_names".into(), "warnings".into()],
                 forbid: vec![],
             }),
         });
         let library_clippy_cfg = LintConfig {
             allow: vec!["clippy::all".into()],
             warn: vec![],
-            deny: vec!["clippy::correctness".into()],
+            deny: vec!["clippy::redundant_field_names".into(), "clippy::correctness".into()],
             forbid: vec![],
         };
         let compiler_clippy_cfg = LintConfig {
             allow: vec!["clippy::all".into()],
             warn: vec![],
-            deny: vec!["clippy::correctness".into(), "clippy::clone_on_ref_ptr".into()],
+            deny: vec![
+                "clippy::redundant_field_names".into(),
+                "clippy::correctness".into(),
+                "clippy::clone_on_ref_ptr".into(),
+            ],
             forbid: vec![],
         };
  

[joshtriplett]

@klensy Please send the clippy change as a separate PR. Happy to review it.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit a105cd6 with merge 4ba4ac6...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: lqd,tgross35,nnethercote
Pushing 4ba4ac6 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4ba4ac6): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.7%	[1.7%, 1.7%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -7.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-7.0%	[-7.0%, -7.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-7.0%	[-7.0%, -7.0%]	1

Cycles

Results (primary 2.9%, secondary -2.7%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[2.0%, 2.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-3.1%	[-4.3%, -2.1%]	14
All ❌✅ (primary)	2.9%	[2.9%, 2.9%]	1

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 769.824s -> 771.62s (0.23%)
Artifact size: 330.35 MiB -> 330.35 MiB (-0.00%)