fix logic error in #44269's prune_cache_value_obligations
#45065
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
We want to retain obligations that *contain* inference variables, not obligations that *don't contain* them, in order to fix rust-lang#43132. Because of surrounding changes to inference, the ICE doesn't occur in its original case, but I believe it could still be made to occur on master. Maybe I should try to write a new test case? Certainly not right now (I'm mainly trying to get us a beta that we can ship) but maybe before we land this PR on nightly? This seems to cause a 10% performance regression in my imprecise attempt to benchmark item-body checking for rust-lang#43613, but it's better to be slow and right than fast and wrong. If we want to recover that, I think we can change the constrained-type-parameter code to actually give a list of projections that are important for resolving inference variables and filter everything else out.
|
r? @pnkfelix (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
arielb1
added
the
beta-nominated
|
@bors r+ p=1 |
|
📌 Commit 91fdadb has been approved by |
nikomatsakis
added
the
beta-accepted
Merged
|
This PR seems to work locally - #43613 still doesn't use too much memory while all the tests run. |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 6, 2017
fix logic error in #44269's `prune_cache_value_obligations` We want to retain obligations that *contain* inference variables, not obligations that *don't contain* them, in order to fix #43132. Because of surrounding changes to inference, the ICE doesn't occur in its original case, but I believe it could still be made to occur on master. Maybe I should try to write a new test case? Certainly not right now (I'm mainly trying to get us a beta that we can ship) but maybe before we land this PR on nightly? This seems to cause a 10% performance regression in my imprecise attempt to benchmark item-body checking for #43613, but it's better to be slow and right than fast and wrong. If we want to recover that, I think we can change the constrained-type-parameter code to actually give a list of projections that are important for resolving inference variables and filter everything else out.
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 7, 2017
Beta 20170928 Backports of: - Allow unused extern crate again #44825 - macros: fix bug in collecting trait and impl items with derives. #44757 - `--cap-lints allow` switches off `can_emit_warnings` #44627 - Update the libc submodule #44116 - limit and clear cache obligations opportunistically #44269 - clear out projection subobligations after they are processed #43999 - fix logic error in #44269's `prune_cache_value_obligations` #45065 - REVERTS #43543: Cleanup some remains of `hr_lifetime_in_assoc_type` compatibility lint:
alexcrichton
removed
the
beta-nominated
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.
We want to retain obligations that contain inference variables, not
obligations that don't contain them, in order to fix #43132. Because
of surrounding changes to inference, the ICE doesn't occur in its
original case, but I believe it could still be made to occur on master.
Maybe I should try to write a new test case? Certainly not right now
(I'm mainly trying to get us a beta that we can ship) but maybe before
we land this PR on nightly?
This seems to cause a 10% performance regression in my imprecise
attempt to benchmark item-body checking for #43613, but it's better to
be slow and right than fast and wrong. If we want to recover that, I
think we can change the constrained-type-parameter code to actually
give a list of projections that are important for resolving inference
variables and filter everything else out.