-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Do not assemble candidates for default impls #121047
Merged
Merged
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
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.
WG-trait-system-refactor
The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver)
labels
Feb 13, 2024
Some changes occurred to the core trait solver cc @rust-lang/initiative-trait-system-refactor |
@bors r+ rollup (specialization is unstable and default impls are unused) |
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
Feb 13, 2024
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2024
Do not assemble candidates for default impls There is no reason (as far as I can tell?) that we should assemble an impl candidate for a default impl. This candidate itself does not prove that the impl holds, and any time that it *does* hold, there will be a more specializing non-default impl that also is assembled. This is because `default impl<T> Foo for T {}` actually expands to `impl<T> Foo for T where T: Foo {}`. The only way to satisfy that where clause (without coinduction) is via *another* implementation that does hold -- precisely an impl that specializes it. This should fix the specialization related regressions for rust-lang#116494. That should lead to one root crate regression that doesn't have to do with specialization, which I think we can regress. r? lcnr cc `@rust-lang/types` cc rust-lang#31844
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#118882 (Check normalized call signature for WF in mir typeck) - rust-lang#120999 (rustdoc: replace `clean::InstantiationParam` with `clean::GenericArg`) - rust-lang#121002 (remove unnecessary calls to `commit_if_ok`) - rust-lang#121005 (Remove jsha from the rustdoc review rotation) - rust-lang#121043 (add lcnr to the compiler-team assignment group) - rust-lang#121045 (Fix two UI tests with incorrect directive / invalid revision) - rust-lang#121046 (Fix incorrect use of `compile_fail`) - rust-lang#121047 (Do not assemble candidates for default impls) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#118882 (Check normalized call signature for WF in mir typeck) - rust-lang#120999 (rustdoc: replace `clean::InstantiationParam` with `clean::GenericArg`) - rust-lang#121002 (remove unnecessary calls to `commit_if_ok`) - rust-lang#121005 (Remove jsha from the rustdoc review rotation) - rust-lang#121014 (Remove `force_print_diagnostic`) - rust-lang#121043 (add lcnr to the compiler-team assignment group) - rust-lang#121046 (Fix incorrect use of `compile_fail`) - rust-lang#121047 (Do not assemble candidates for default impls) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#118882 (Check normalized call signature for WF in mir typeck) - rust-lang#120999 (rustdoc: replace `clean::InstantiationParam` with `clean::GenericArg`) - rust-lang#121002 (remove unnecessary calls to `commit_if_ok`) - rust-lang#121005 (Remove jsha from the rustdoc review rotation) - rust-lang#121014 (Remove `force_print_diagnostic`) - rust-lang#121043 (add lcnr to the compiler-team assignment group) - rust-lang#121046 (Fix incorrect use of `compile_fail`) - rust-lang#121047 (Do not assemble candidates for default impls) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#118882 (Check normalized call signature for WF in mir typeck) - rust-lang#120999 (rustdoc: replace `clean::InstantiationParam` with `clean::GenericArg`) - rust-lang#121002 (remove unnecessary calls to `commit_if_ok`) - rust-lang#121005 (Remove jsha from the rustdoc review rotation) - rust-lang#121014 (Remove `force_print_diagnostic`) - rust-lang#121043 (add lcnr to the compiler-team assignment group) - rust-lang#121046 (Fix incorrect use of `compile_fail`) - rust-lang#121047 (Do not assemble candidates for default impls) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#121047 - compiler-errors:default-impls, r=lcnr Do not assemble candidates for default impls There is no reason (as far as I can tell?) that we should assemble an impl candidate for a default impl. This candidate itself does not prove that the impl holds, and any time that it *does* hold, there will be a more specializing non-default impl that also is assembled. This is because `default impl<T> Foo for T {}` actually expands to `impl<T> Foo for T where T: Foo {}`. The only way to satisfy that where clause (without coinduction) is via *another* implementation that does hold -- precisely an impl that specializes it. This should fix the specialization related regressions for rust-lang#116494. That should lead to one root crate regression that doesn't have to do with specialization, which I think we can regress. r? lcnr cc ``@rust-lang/types`` cc rust-lang#31844
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
WG-trait-system-refactor
The Rustc Trait System Refactor Initiative (-Znext-solver)
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.
There is no reason (as far as I can tell?) that we should assemble an impl candidate for a default impl. This candidate itself does not prove that the impl holds, and any time that it does hold, there will be a more specializing non-default impl that also is assembled.
This is because
default impl<T> Foo for T {}
actually expands toimpl<T> Foo for T where T: Foo {}
. The only way to satisfy that where clause (without coinduction) is via another implementation that does hold -- precisely an impl that specializes it.This should fix the specialization related regressions for #116494. That should lead to one root crate regression that doesn't have to do with specialization, which I think we can regress.
r? lcnr cc @rust-lang/types
cc #31844