Point to definition when modifying field of immutable variable by estebank · Pull Request #40767 · rust-lang/rust

estebank · 2017-03-23T18:28:24Z

Given a file

structS{x:i32,}fnfoo(){let s = S{x:42};
s.x += 1;}fnbar(s:S){
s.x += 1;}

Provide the following output:

error: cannot assign to immutable field `s.x`
--> $DIR/issue-35937.rs:16:5
|
5 | let s = S{x:42};
| - consider changing this to `mut s`
6 | s.x += 1;
| ^^^^^^^^ cannot mutably borrow immutable field
error: cannot assign to immutable field `s.x`
--> $DIR/issue-35937.rs:20:5
|
8 | fn bar(s:S){
| - consider changing this to `mut s`
9 | s.x += 1;
| ^^^^^^^^ cannot mutably borrow immutable field

Follow up to #40445. Fix#35937.

rust-highfive · 2017-03-23T18:28:36Z

r? @pnkfelix

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

Mark-Simulacrum · 2017-03-23T23:35:42Z

It'd be nice to avoid the phrasing "immutable field" since it's not really the field that's immutable, but more the binding of the struct. I'm not sure I can come up with anything better than "immutable binding," though, which isn't great either.

The help message does alleviate most of the potential pain from this, so while nice to improve, certainly not necessary.

Given a file ```rust struct S { x: i32, } fn foo() { let s = S { x: 42 }; s.x += 1; } fn bar(s: S) { s.x += 1; } ``` Provide the following output: ```rust error: cannot assign to immutable field `s.x` --> $DIR/issue-35937.rs:16:5 | 5 | let s = S { x: 42 }; | - consider changing this to `mut s` 6 | s.x += 1; | ^^^^^^^^ cannot mutably borrow immutable field error: cannot assign to immutable field `s.x` --> $DIR/issue-35937.rs:20:5 | 8 | fn bar(s: S) { | - consider changing this to `mut s` 9 | s.x += 1; | ^^^^^^^^ cannot mutably borrow immutable field ``` Follow up to rust-lang#40445. Fixrust-lang#35937.

pnkfelix · 2017-03-30T09:36:00Z

@bors r+

bors · 2017-03-30T09:36:01Z

📌 Commit 289772f has been approved by pnkfelix

bors · 2017-03-30T12:44:17Z

⌛ Testing commit 289772f with merge 83d832d...

bors · 2017-03-30T13:04:08Z

💔 Test failed - status-travis

estebank · 2017-04-02T15:39:32Z

@bors retry

bors · 2017-04-02T18:02:15Z

⌛ Testing commit 289772f with merge d1023ae...

bors · 2017-04-02T18:06:06Z

💔 Test failed - status-travis

alexcrichton · 2017-04-02T18:24:23Z

@bors: retry * network error

…

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 12:06 PM, bors ***@***.***> wrote: 💔 Test failed - status-travis <https://travis-ci.org/rust-lang/rust/builds/217835654> — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#40767 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD95IYapgdutfh1OLNNGqyDfVQyFaSCks5rr-OPgaJpZM4MnLU7> .

bors · 2017-04-03T03:07:26Z

⌛ Testing commit 289772f with merge 7f2ec26...

bors · 2017-04-03T03:26:07Z

💔 Test failed - status-travis

estebank · 2017-04-03T17:59:07Z

@bors retry

bors · 2017-04-03T18:42:16Z

⌛ Testing commit 289772f with merge cd0a4f3...

bors · 2017-04-03T18:52:08Z

💔 Test failed - status-travis

alexcrichton · 2017-04-03T22:10:47Z

@bors: retry * network failure w/ centos #40474

…

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:52 PM, bors ***@***.***> wrote: 💔 Test failed - status-travis <https://travis-ci.org/rust-lang/rust/builds/218183568> — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#40767 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD95MV5yw_Q3VTl2iQ_uY3N9xvjHpvWks5rsT_agaJpZM4MnLU7> .

bors · 2017-04-05T08:12:16Z

⌛ Testing commit 289772f with merge ceaaebc...

bors · 2017-04-05T08:34:07Z

💔 Test failed - status-travis

estebank · 2017-04-05T12:06:13Z

@bors retry

alexcrichton · 2017-04-05T16:16:57Z

@bors: r-

I think that's a legitimate error unfortunately:

[00:12:10] Compiling rustc_borrowck v0.0.0 (file:///checkout/src/librustc_borrowck)
[00:12:10] error[E0425]: cannot find value `local_def` in this scope
[00:12:10] --> /checkout/src/librustc_borrowck/borrowck/mod.rs:690:25
[00:12:10] |
[00:12:10] 690 | local_def = err.cmt.get_def().map(|nid| self.tcx.hir.span(nid));
[00:12:10] | ^^^^^^^^^ not found in this scope
[00:12:10] [00:12:11] error: no method named `get_def` found for type `std::rc::Rc<rustc::middle::mem_categorization::cmt_<'tcx>>` in the current scope
[00:12:11] --> /checkout/src/librustc_borrowck/borrowck/mod.rs:690:45
[00:12:11] |
[00:12:11] 690 | local_def = err.cmt.get_def().map(|nid| self.tcx.hir.span(nid));
[00:12:11] | ^^^^^^^
[00:12:11] [00:12:11] error[E0277]: the trait bound `str: core::marker::Sized` is not satisfied
[00:12:11] --> /checkout/src/librustc_borrowck/borrowck/mod.rs:666:13
[00:12:11] |
[00:12:11] 666 | let msg = match err.code {
[00:12:11] | ^^^ the trait `core::marker::Sized` is not implemented for `str`
[00:12:11] |
[00:12:11] = note: `str` does not have a constant size known at compile-time
[00:12:11] = note: all local variables must have a statically known size
[00:12:11] [00:12:13] error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
[00:12:13] [00:12:13] error: Could not compile `rustc_borrowck`.
[00:12:13] Build failed, waiting for other jobs to finish...
[00:13:06] error: build failed
[00:13:06] [00:13:06] [00:13:06] command did not execute successfully: "/checkout/obj/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage0/bin/cargo" "build" "-j" "4" "--target" "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" "--release" "--locked" "--features" " jemalloc" "--manifest-path" "/checkout/src/rustc/Cargo.toml"
[00:13:06] expected success, got: exit code: 101
[00:13:06] [00:13:06] [00:13:06] Build completed unsuccessfully in 0:10:40
[00:13:06] Makefile:24: recipe for target 'all' failed
[00:13:06] make: *** [all] Error 1

estebank · 2017-04-05T17:08:11Z

@alexcrichton it seems like #40841 supersedes this PR.

rust-highfive assigned pnkfelix Mar 23, 2017

estebank force-pushed the issue-35937 branch from 92852a3 to e1aa0b8Compare March 23, 2017 22:19

estebank force-pushed the issue-35937 branch 2 times, most recently from 0f8c678 to 289772fCompare March 24, 2017 04:14

estebank closed this Apr 5, 2017

durka mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2017
"cannot assign to immutable field" could be confusing #35937
Closed

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

estebank commented Mar 23, 2017

Uh oh!

rust-highfive commented Mar 23, 2017

Uh oh!

Mark-Simulacrum commented Mar 23, 2017

Uh oh!

pnkfelix commented Mar 30, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented Mar 30, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented Mar 30, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented Mar 30, 2017

Uh oh!

estebank commented Apr 2, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented Apr 2, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented Apr 2, 2017

Uh oh!

alexcrichton commented Apr 2, 2017 via email

Uh oh!

bors commented Apr 3, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented Apr 3, 2017

Uh oh!

estebank commented Apr 3, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented Apr 3, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented Apr 3, 2017

Uh oh!

alexcrichton commented Apr 3, 2017 via email

Uh oh!

bors commented Apr 5, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented Apr 5, 2017

Uh oh!

estebank commented Apr 5, 2017

Uh oh!

alexcrichton commented Apr 5, 2017

Uh oh!

estebank commented Apr 5, 2017

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants