You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Given a goal like u32: Trait<'a, 'a>, should this be canonicalized to exists<'0> u32: Trait<'0, '0> or exists<'0, '1> u32: Trait<'0, '1>? Using the first variant causes issues in MIR typeck (#27). Going with the second approach will force us to use a semantic lookup for opaque types (#17).
We ended up going back to uniquifying region constraints in rust-lang/rust#114117. This feels like the only way to avoid the ICEs in MIR typeck from #27
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Given a goal like
u32: Trait<'a, 'a>
, should this be canonicalized toexists<'0> u32: Trait<'0, '0>
orexists<'0, '1> u32: Trait<'0, '1>
? Using the first variant causes issues in MIR typeck (#27). Going with the second approach will force us to use a semantic lookup for opaque types (#17).https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/364551-t-types.2Ftrait-system-refactor/topic/mir.20typeck.20and.20relying.20on.20region.20equality
We ended up going back to uniquifying region constraints in rust-lang/rust#114117. This feels like the only way to avoid the ICEs in MIR typeck from #27
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: