Avoid ICE by using delay_span_bug #60721
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
|
r? @cramertj (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit adc18eb has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-travis, status-appveyor |
compiler-errors
added a commit
to compiler-errors/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 4, 2024
…ompiler-errors Winnow private method candidates instead of assuming any candidate of the right name will apply partially reverts rust-lang#60721 My original motivation was just to avoid the `delay_span_bug` (by attempting to thread the `ErrorGuaranteed` through to here). But then I realized that the error message is wrong. It refers to the `Foo<A>::foo` instead of `Foo<B>::foo`. This is almost invisible, because both functions are the same, but on different lines, so `-Zui-testing` makes it so the test is the same no matter which of these two functions is referenced. But there's a much more obvious bug: If `Foo<B>` does not have a `foo` method at all, but `Foo<A>` has a private `foo` method, then we'll refer to that one. This has now been fixed, and we report a normal `method not found` error. The way this is done is by creating a list of all possible private functions (just like we create a list of the public functions that can actually be called), and then winnowing it by analyzing where bounds and `Self` types to see if any of the found methods can actually apply (again, just like with the list of public functions). I wonder if there is room for doing the same thing with unstable functions instead of running all of method resolution twice. r? `@compiler-errors` for method resolution stuff
fmease
added a commit
to fmease/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 4, 2024
…ompiler-errors Winnow private method candidates instead of assuming any candidate of the right name will apply partially reverts rust-lang#60721 My original motivation was just to avoid the `delay_span_bug` (by attempting to thread the `ErrorGuaranteed` through to here). But then I realized that the error message is wrong. It refers to the `Foo<A>::foo` instead of `Foo<B>::foo`. This is almost invisible, because both functions are the same, but on different lines, so `-Zui-testing` makes it so the test is the same no matter which of these two functions is referenced. But there's a much more obvious bug: If `Foo<B>` does not have a `foo` method at all, but `Foo<A>` has a private `foo` method, then we'll refer to that one. This has now been fixed, and we report a normal `method not found` error. The way this is done is by creating a list of all possible private functions (just like we create a list of the public functions that can actually be called), and then winnowing it by analyzing where bounds and `Self` types to see if any of the found methods can actually apply (again, just like with the list of public functions). I wonder if there is room for doing the same thing with unstable functions instead of running all of method resolution twice. r? `@compiler-errors` for method resolution stuff
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 5, 2024
…ompiler-errors Winnow private method candidates instead of assuming any candidate of the right name will apply partially reverts rust-lang#60721 My original motivation was just to avoid the `delay_span_bug` (by attempting to thread the `ErrorGuaranteed` through to here). But then I realized that the error message is wrong. It refers to the `Foo<A>::foo` instead of `Foo<B>::foo`. This is almost invisible, because both functions are the same, but on different lines, so `-Zui-testing` makes it so the test is the same no matter which of these two functions is referenced. But there's a much more obvious bug: If `Foo<B>` does not have a `foo` method at all, but `Foo<A>` has a private `foo` method, then we'll refer to that one. This has now been fixed, and we report a normal `method not found` error. The way this is done is by creating a list of all possible private functions (just like we create a list of the public functions that can actually be called), and then winnowing it by analyzing where bounds and `Self` types to see if any of the found methods can actually apply (again, just like with the list of public functions). I wonder if there is room for doing the same thing with unstable functions instead of running all of method resolution twice. r? ``@compiler-errors`` for method resolution stuff
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 5, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#125622 - oli-obk:define_opaque_types15, r=compiler-errors Winnow private method candidates instead of assuming any candidate of the right name will apply partially reverts rust-lang#60721 My original motivation was just to avoid the `delay_span_bug` (by attempting to thread the `ErrorGuaranteed` through to here). But then I realized that the error message is wrong. It refers to the `Foo<A>::foo` instead of `Foo<B>::foo`. This is almost invisible, because both functions are the same, but on different lines, so `-Zui-testing` makes it so the test is the same no matter which of these two functions is referenced. But there's a much more obvious bug: If `Foo<B>` does not have a `foo` method at all, but `Foo<A>` has a private `foo` method, then we'll refer to that one. This has now been fixed, and we report a normal `method not found` error. The way this is done is by creating a list of all possible private functions (just like we create a list of the public functions that can actually be called), and then winnowing it by analyzing where bounds and `Self` types to see if any of the found methods can actually apply (again, just like with the list of public functions). I wonder if there is room for doing the same thing with unstable functions instead of running all of method resolution twice. r? ``@compiler-errors`` for method resolution stuff
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.
Fix #59406, fix #53498.