Check method input expressions once #94438
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
the
T-compiler
|
(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
compiler-errors
force-pushed
the
check-method-inputs-once
branch
from
0993495
to
defdfbe
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
compiler-errors
force-pushed
the
check-method-inputs-once
branch
from
defdfbe
to
7543067
Compare
|
Thanks for the PR, @compiler-errors! r? rust-lang/diagnostics |
davidtwco
reviewed
Mar 1, 2022
davidtwco
approved these changes
Mar 1, 2022
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 7543067 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 1, 2022
…askrgr Rollup of 3 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#94438 (Check method input expressions once) - rust-lang#94459 (Update cargo) - rust-lang#94470 (:arrow_up: rust-analyzer) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
camelid
added
the
beta-nominated
|
I'm not sure if this makes sense to backport or not, but I nominated it just in case. |
|
Actually, this PR seems to have led to an ICE of its own, so it probably doesn't make sense to backport it: #94516 |
|
Yeah, can't be backported until that one is fixed too. I can investigate it soon. |
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 4, 2022
…plicate, r=estebank Delay bug in expr adjustment when check_expr is called multiple times Instead of including slightly more complicated logic in `check_argument_types` to fix the bug (rust-lang#94516) I introduced in rust-lang#94438, and inevitably have this bug appear once again when some other diagnostic is written that causes `check_expr` to be called an expression during a (bad) code path, just delay the bug in adjustment logic. I am open to other implementations that don't delay the bug here. Fixes rust-lang#94516
rustbot
added
the
beta-accepted
Mark-Simulacrum
removed
the
beta-nominated
Merged
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 14, 2022
…ulacrum [beta] backports * Update LLVM submodule rust-lang#94764 * Statically compile libstdc++ everywhere if asked rust-lang#94719 * Downgrade #[test] on macro call to warning rust-lang#94624 * Delay bug in expr adjustment when check_expr is called multiple times rust-lang#94596 * bootstrap: correct reading of flags for llvm rust-lang#94466 * Check method input expressions once rust-lang#94438 * remove feature gate in control_flow examples rust-lang#94283 r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
compiler-errors
added a commit
to compiler-errors/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2022
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 22, 2022
…k-Simulacrum [beta] Remove statement that was forgotten when backporting rust-lang#94596 This `if` statement was introduced in rust-lang#94438, then removed in rust-lang#94596. Both of these PRs were beta-backported in rust-lang#94933, but I think there was a mistake in the order they were applied or this removal was overlooked. I think this fixes the remaining issues referenced in rust-lang#94511 (comment). Not sure this is the correct way to put something up for beta-backport, but the PR is at least open so it can be referenced and the commit can be cherry-picked. Feel free to close this PR. r? `@Mark-Simulacrum` cc: rust-lang#94511
MabezDev
pushed a commit
to esp-rs/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2022
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.
If the user mistakenly forgets to wrap their method args in a tuple, then the compiler tries to check that types within the tuple match the expression args. This means we call
check_expronce within this diagnostic code, so when we check the expr once again indemand_compatible, we attempt to apply expr adjustments twice, leading to ICEs.This PR attempts to fix this by skipping the expression type check in
demand_compatibleif we have detected an method arg mismatch at all.This does lead to a single UI test regressing slightly, due to a diagnostic disappearing, though I don't know if it is generally meaningful to even raise an type error after noting that the argument count is incorrect in a function call, since the user might be providing (in-context) meaningless expressions to the wrong method.
I can adjust this to be a bit more targeted (to just skip checking exprs in
demand_compatiblein the tuple case) if this UI test regression is a problem.fixes #94334
cc #94291
Also drive-by fixup of
.node_type(expr.hir_id)to.expr_ty(expr), since that method exists.