Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Properly check the defining scope of existential types - #63093
Conversation
Fixesrust-lang#52632 Existential types (soon to be 'impl trait' aliases) can either be delcared at a top-level crate/module scope, or within another item such as an fn. Previously, we were handling the second case incorrectly when recursively searching for defining usages - we would check children of the item, but not the item itself. This lead to us missing closures that consituted a defining use of the existential type, as their opaque type instantiations are stored in the TypeckTables of their parent function. This commit ensures that we explicitly visit the defining item itself, not just its children.
rust-highfive
commented
Jul 28, 2019
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
Aaron1011
commented
Jul 28, 2019
While I don't make any behavior changes to |
| @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ | |||
| #![feature(existential_type)] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you also add some comments to this file and rename it to issue-52843-$description?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Centril
commented
Jul 28, 2019
Co-Authored-By: Mazdak Farrokhzad <twingoow@gmail.com>
Aaron1011
commented
Jul 28, 2019
@Centril fixed |
cramertj
commented
Jul 29, 2019
@bors r+ |
bors
commented
Jul 29, 2019
📌 Commit 3e98c3a has been approved by |
…r=cramertj Properly check the defining scope of existential types Fixesrust-lang#52632 Existential types (soon to be 'impl trait' aliases) can either be delcared at a top-level crate/module scope, or within another item such as an fn. Previously, we were handling the second case incorrectly when recursively searching for defining usages - we would check children of the item, but not the item itself. This lead to us missing closures that consituted a defining use of the existential type, as their opaque type instantiations are stored in the TypeckTables of their parent function. This commit ensures that we explicitly visit the defining item itself, not just its children.
petrochenkov
commented
Jul 29, 2019
r? @cramertj |
…r=cramertj Properly check the defining scope of existential types Fixesrust-lang#52632 Existential types (soon to be 'impl trait' aliases) can either be delcared at a top-level crate/module scope, or within another item such as an fn. Previously, we were handling the second case incorrectly when recursively searching for defining usages - we would check children of the item, but not the item itself. This lead to us missing closures that consituted a defining use of the existential type, as their opaque type instantiations are stored in the TypeckTables of their parent function. This commit ensures that we explicitly visit the defining item itself, not just its children.
…r=cramertj Properly check the defining scope of existential types Fixesrust-lang#52632 Existential types (soon to be 'impl trait' aliases) can either be delcared at a top-level crate/module scope, or within another item such as an fn. Previously, we were handling the second case incorrectly when recursively searching for defining usages - we would check children of the item, but not the item itself. This lead to us missing closures that consituted a defining use of the existential type, as their opaque type instantiations are stored in the TypeckTables of their parent function. This commit ensures that we explicitly visit the defining item itself, not just its children.
…r=cramertj Properly check the defining scope of existential types Fixesrust-lang#52632 Existential types (soon to be 'impl trait' aliases) can either be delcared at a top-level crate/module scope, or within another item such as an fn. Previously, we were handling the second case incorrectly when recursively searching for defining usages - we would check children of the item, but not the item itself. This lead to us missing closures that consituted a defining use of the existential type, as their opaque type instantiations are stored in the TypeckTables of their parent function. This commit ensures that we explicitly visit the defining item itself, not just its children.
Rollup of 12 pull requests Successful merges: - #61965 (Remove mentions of removed `offset_to` method from `align_offset` docs) - #62928 (Syntax: Recover on `for ( $pat in $expr ) $block`) - #63000 (Impl Debug for Chars) - #63083 (Make generic parameters always use modern hygiene) - #63087 (Add very simple edition check to tidy.) - #63093 (Properly check the defining scope of existential types) - #63096 (Add tests for some `existential_type` ICEs) - #63099 (vxworks: Remove Linux-specific comments.) - #63106 (ci: Skip installing SWIG/xz on OSX ) - #63108 (Add links to None in Option doc) - #63109 (std: Fix a failing `fs` test on Windows) - #63111 (Add syntactic and semantic tests for rest patterns, i.e. `..`) Failed merges: r? @ghost
| fn main() { | ||
| existential type Existential: Debug; | ||
| fn _unused() -> Existential { String::new() } | ||
| //~^ ERROR: concrete type differs from previous defining existential type use |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
moderately confusing to have the first item (textually) talk about "previous". Maybe we should reword "previous" to "other"
Fixes#52632
Existential types (soon to be 'impl trait' aliases) can either be
delcared at a top-level crate/module scope, or within another item such
as an fn. Previously, we were handling the second case incorrectly when
recursively searching for defining usages - we would check children of
the item, but not the item itself. This lead to us missing closures
that consituted a defining use of the existential type, as their opaque
type instantiations are stored in the TypeckTables of their parent
function.
This commit ensures that we explicitly visit the defining item itself,
not just its children.