Skip to content
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

chalkify: Fix lowering of traits with supertraits #49971

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

tmandry
Copy link
Member

@tmandry tmandry commented Apr 14, 2018

Fixes #49953.

A little ugly, but also temporary 😃

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @cramertj

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Apr 14, 2018
@tmandry
Copy link
Member Author

tmandry commented Apr 14, 2018

r? @nikomatsakis

@tmandry tmandry requested a review from scalexm April 14, 2018 23:18
}
}
true
})
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems like this would also skip a predicate of the form:

trait A where <Self as A>::Item: A {
    type Item;
}

or equivalently:

trait A {
    type Item: A;
}

since you are only relying on the def id. Actually maybe it would be better to just wait for your PR which removes the Self: Trait predicate...

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, good catch. I'll try and make progress on that PR today. A patch that might possibly still work here is to filter out only the first predicate that matches this condition, but it still feels quite brittle!

@pietroalbini
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the PR! Can @nikomatsakis or someone else from @rust-lang/compiler review this?

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Apr 23, 2018

This is blocked on another PR. @tmandry can you link the PR here?

@tmandry
Copy link
Member Author

tmandry commented Apr 23, 2018

It's still very much a WIP but I made one, #50183. This PR might be closed in favor of that one.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 24, 2018

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #49837) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@pietroalbini pietroalbini added S-blocked Status: Marked as blocked ❌ on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Apr 30, 2018
@shepmaster shepmaster added S-blocked Status: Marked as blocked ❌ on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. and removed S-blocked Status: Marked as blocked ❌ on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. labels May 6, 2018
@pietroalbini pietroalbini added S-blocked Status: Marked as blocked ❌ on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. and removed S-blocked Status: Marked as blocked ❌ on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. labels May 14, 2018
@TimNN TimNN added S-blocked Status: Marked as blocked ❌ on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. and removed S-blocked Status: Marked as blocked ❌ on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. labels May 22, 2018
@pietroalbini pietroalbini added S-blocked Status: Marked as blocked ❌ on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. and removed S-blocked Status: Marked as blocked ❌ on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. labels Jun 4, 2018
@TimNN TimNN added A-allocators Area: Custom and system allocators and removed A-allocators Area: Custom and system allocators labels Jun 12, 2018
@TimNN TimNN added A-allocators Area: Custom and system allocators and removed A-allocators Area: Custom and system allocators labels Jun 26, 2018
@tmandry
Copy link
Member Author

tmandry commented Jun 30, 2018

Closing in favor of #51895.

@tmandry tmandry closed this Jun 30, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-blocked Status: Marked as blocked ❌ on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

10 participants