| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|
extend NLL checker to understand `'empty` combined with universes
This PR extends the NLL region checker to understand `'empty` combined with universes. In particular, it means that the NLL region checker no longer considers `exists<R2> { forall<R1> { R1: R2 } }` to be provable. This is work towards https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/59490, but we're not all the way there. One thing in particular it does not address is error messages.
The modifications to the NLL region inference code turned out to be simpler than expected. The main change is to require that if `R1: R2` then `universe(R1) <= universe(R2)`.
This constraint follows from the region lattice (shown below), because we assume then that `R2` is "at least" `empty(Universe(R2))`, and hence if `R1: R2` (i.e., `R1 >= R2` on the lattice) then `R1` must be in some universe that can name `'empty(Universe(R2))`, which requires that `Universe(R1) <= Universe(R2)`.
```
static ----------+-----...------+ (greatest)
| | |
early-bound and | |
free regions | |
| | |
scope regions | |
| | |
empty(root) placeholder(U1) |
| / |
| / placeholder(Un)
empty(U1) -- /
| /
... /
| /
empty(Un) -------- (smallest)
```
I also made what turned out to be a somewhat unrelated change to add a special region to represent `'empty(U0)`, which we use (somewhat hackily) to indicate well-formedness checks in some parts of the compiler. This fixes #68550.
I did some investigation into fixing the error message situation. That's a bit trickier: the existing "nice region error" code around placeholders relies on having better error tracing than NLL currently provides, so that it knows (e.g.) that the constraint arose from applying a trait impl and things like that. I feel like I was hoping *not* to do such fine-grained tracing in NLL, and it seems like we...largely...got away with that. I'm not sure yet if we'll have to add more tracing information or if there is some sort of alternative.
It's worth pointing out though that I've not kind of shifted my opinion on whose job it should be to enforce lifetimes: I tend to think we ought to be moving back towards *something like* the leak-check (just not the one we *had*). If we took that approach, it would actually resolve this aspect of the error message problem, because we would be resolving 'higher-ranked errors' in the trait solver itself, and hence we wouldn't have to thread as much causal information back to the region checker. I think it would also help us with removing the leak check while not breaking some of the existing crates out there.
Regardless, I think it's worth landing this change, because it was relatively simple and it aligns the set of programs that NLL accepts with those that are accepted by the main region checker, and hence should at least *help* us in migration (though I guess we still also have to resolve the existing crates that rely on leak check for coherence).
r? @matthewjasper
|
|
When the return type is `!Sized` we look for all the returned
expressions in the body to fetch their types and provide a reasonable
suggestion. The tail expression of the body is normally evaluated after
checking whether the return type is `Sized`. Changing the order of the
evaluation produces undesirable knock down effects, so we detect the
specific case that newcomers are likely to encounter ,returning a single
bare trait object, and only in that case we evaluate the tail
expression's type so that the suggestion will be accurate.
|
|
During development, a function could have a return type set that is a
bare trait object by accident. We already suggest using either a boxed
trait object or `impl Trait` if the return paths will allow it. We now
do so too when there are *no* return paths or they all resolve to `!`.
We still don't handle cases where the trait object is *not* the entirety
of the return type gracefully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use `PredicateObligation`s instead of `Predicate`s
Keep more information about trait binding failures. Use more specific spans by pointing at bindings that introduce obligations.
Subset of #69709.
r? @eddyb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polonius: update to 0.12.1, fix more move errors false positives, update test expectations
This PR:
- updates `polonius-engine` to version 0.12.1 to fix some move errors false positives
- fixes a fact generation mistake creating the other move errors false positives
- updates the test expectations for the polonius compare-mode so that all (minus the 2 OOMs) ui tests pass again (matching the [analysis doc](https://hackmd.io/CjYB0fs4Q9CweyeTdKWyEg?view) starting at case 34)
In my opinion, this is safe to rollup.
r? @nikomatsakis
|
|
Some impl Trait fixes lead to locating more accurately the cause of
a universal region error with a user annotation
|
|
Some of the bound restriction structured suggestions were incorrect
while others had subpar output.
|
|
Previously, we threw away the `Span` associated with a definition's
identifier when we encoded crate metadata, causing us to lose location
and hygiene information.
We now store the identifier's `Span` in the crate metadata.
When we decode items from the metadata, we combine
the name and span back into an `Ident`.
This improves the output of several tests, which previously had messages
suppressed due to dummy spans.
This is a prerequisite for #68686, since throwing away a `Span` means
that we lose hygiene information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We already have a structured suggestion, but the wording made it seem
like that wasn't the case.
Fix #65286. r? @varkor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is to avoid cycles when calling `is_freeze` on an opaque type.
|
|
|
|
Make issue references consistent
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62976
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/63008
r? @varkor because you reviewed the original pr
|
|
Improve reporting errors and suggestions for trait bounds
Fix #66802
- When printing errors for unsized function parameter, properly point at the parameter instead of function's body.
- Improve `consider further restricting this bound` (and related) messages by separating human-oriented hints from the machine-oriented ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
suggestions when possible
|
|
Stemming from the thread at https://twitter.com/indygreg/status/1223279056398929920
|
|
|
|
Issue error on `compile-fail` header in UI test
Fixes #68732
r? @Centril
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No longer suggest `Box::new(if foo { Type1 } else { Type2 })`, instead
suggesting `if foo { Box::new(Type1) } else { Box::new(Type2) }`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|