relax suspicious_auto_trait_impls lint wrt lifetimes
#94925
Conversation
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
lcnr
added
the
beta-nominated
|
again nominating this for a beta backport. the lint isn't on stable yet and we should remove as many incorrect occurrences as possible, similar to #94315. |
lcnr
changed the title
suspicious_auto_trait_impls lintsuspicious_auto_trait_impls lint wrt lifetimes
|
r? rust-lang/diagnostics |
| | | ||
| LL | pub struct WithLifetime<'a, T>(&'a (), T); | ||
| | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | ||
| = note: `Vec<T>` is not a generic parameter |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ideally this would be a span_label pointing at the right place, not a note
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, it's somewhat difficult to get that using a type visitor 🤔 could maybe improve it by at least pointing at the self type 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think there's some code somewhere that does exactly that already. It'd be in one of my old PRs.
|
@bors r+ ...but it seems like the error being avoided should maybe be a warning? |
|
📌 Commit 82d8e84 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (f21488a): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant results. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression |
what exactly do you mean here? The reason for that lint is that we intend to change the behavior of auto traits in the future and want to lint any impls whose semantics change when that happens. Impls only specializing on lifetimes will not change their meaning with my proposed change. |
rustbot
added
the
beta-accepted
Mark-Simulacrum
removed
the
beta-nominated
[beta] backport rust-lang#94925 backports rust-lang#94925 looks like that PR might have slipped through 🤔 does it help if there's an open issue to track that in the future, or are there other things I can do to make this less likely in the future? r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
fixes the warning for #93367 (comment).