Return nested obligations from canonical response var unification #109493
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Some changes occurred to the core trait solver cc @rust-lang/initiative-trait-system-refactor |
compiler-errors
force-pushed
the
new-solver-vars-obligations
branch
from
d2377ca to
3b3c8c9
Compare
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #109503) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
lcnr
reviewed
Mar 23, 2023
| @@ -81,10 +81,18 @@ impl<'tcx> InferCtxtExt<'tcx> for InferCtxt<'tcx> { | |||
|
|
|||
| if self.tcx.trait_solver_next() { | |||
| self.probe(|snapshot| { | |||
| if let Ok((_, certainty)) = | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think we already talked about that before, but is there a reason we can't use the FulfillmentContext and select_where_possible?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't bubble up overflow correctly when using a fulfillment context, but we're actually already using a fulfillment context for the evaluate queries in SelectionCtxt.... so seems alright for now, I can migrate it to use fulfillment. I'll leave a FIXME.
compiler-errors
force-pushed
the
new-solver-vars-obligations
branch
from
3b3c8c9 to
1680334
Compare
|
@bors r=lcnr |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2023
…iaskrgr Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#108629 (rustdoc: add support for type filters in arguments and generics) - rust-lang#108924 (panic_immediate_abort requires abort as a panic strategy) - rust-lang#108961 (Refine error spans for const args in hir typeck) - rust-lang#108986 (sync LVI tests) - rust-lang#109142 (Add block-based mutex unlocking example) - rust-lang#109368 (fix typo in the creation of OpenOption for RustyHermit) - rust-lang#109493 (Return nested obligations from canonical response var unification) - rust-lang#109515 (Add AixLinker to support linking on AIX) - rust-lang#109536 (resolve: Rename some cstore methods to match queries and add comments) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #109547) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Handle alias-eq obligations being emitted from
instantiate_and_apply_query_responsein:EvalCtxt- by processing the nested obligations in the next loop bynew_goalsFulfillCtxt- by adding the nested obligations to the fulfillment's pending obligationsInferCtxt::evaluate_obligation-by returningsame behavior as above, since we use fulfillment andEvaluationResult::EvaluatedToAmbig(boo 👎, see the FIXME)select_where_possibleThe only one that's truly sketchy is
evaluate_obligation, but it's not hard to modify this behavior moving forward.From #109037, I think a smaller repro could be crafted if I were smarter, but I am not, so I just took this from #105878.
r? @lcnr cc @BoxyUwU