Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Some fixes to mir-borrowck - #44736
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Sep 21, 2017
r? @eddyb (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
eddyb
commented
Sep 21, 2017
@bors r+ |
bors
commented
Sep 21, 2017
📌 Commit 6438c7f has been approved by |
pnkfelix
commented
Sep 21, 2017
54068fd to
bf1c691Comparepnkfelix
commented
Sep 22, 2017
r? @arielb1 |
pnkfelix
commented
Sep 22, 2017
(one further refactoring that I am considering is to fold the calls to |
bors
commented
Sep 23, 2017
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #44784) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AST borrowck basically does a Deep write here and we might want to stay in sync with it. Also, if you leave this as Shallow without erasing borrows in dataflow::impls::borrows you'll have some very confusing diagnostics.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In AST borrowck, this is "borrow does not live long enough" for both Drop and StorageDead. ofc. you can match on the context instead if you want.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should check somewhere that you have sufficient permissions to do the access - aka no mutable borrows of immutable references or moves through a non-Box reference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can leave that to a different PR through.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(added a fixme-comment noting that we need to have this.)
arielb1
commented
Sep 24, 2017
Basically r=me after a rebase. There are a few comments, but you can leave them to me or to a follow-up PR. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This includes a "drive-by" fix to #38899. I think we might have a "legacy compatibility mode" that does not include this drive-by fix, so we can get a good summary of real issues in a crater.
At least add a comment // DIFFERENCE FROM BORROWCK.
Thanks for taking time |
I think my approach to the AST-/MIR-borrrowck discrepancies that @arielb1 has pointed out will be to just put in comments for now. Haven't decided 100% about that yet, but since one has to opt in to using MIR-borrowck in the first place via a Update: I decided in some cases to switch immediately to the AST-compatible mode. In either case I added comments in each instance pointing out that this particular piece of code is responsible for some planned discrepancy between AST- and (eventual) MIR-borrowck. |
In particular: * introduce the shallow/deep distinction for read/write accesses * use the notions of prefixes, shallow prefixes, and supporting prefixes rather than trying to recreate the restricted sets from ast-borrowck. * Add shallow reads of Discriminant and ArrayLength, and treat them as artificial fields when doing prefix traversals.
bf1c691 to
e319f40Comparearielb1
commented
Sep 25, 2017
@bors r+ |
bors
commented
Sep 25, 2017
📌 Commit e319f40 has been approved by |
bors
commented
Sep 26, 2017
Some fixes to mir-borrowck Make the code more closely match the NLL RFC (updated description). (The biggest visible fix the addition of the Shallow/Deep distinction, which means mir-borrowck stops falsely thinking that StorageDeads need deep access to their input L-value.)
bors
commented
Sep 26, 2017
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Make the code more closely match the NLL RFC (updated description).
(The biggest visible fix the addition of the Shallow/Deep distinction, which means mir-borrowck stops falsely thinking that StorageDeads need deep access to their input L-value.)