Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
When possible point at argument causing item obligation failure - #64498
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Sep 16, 2019
r? @zackmdavis (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I want to acknowledge that this is not the ideal solution, but my attempts at modifying the obligation preemptively and collecting an association between the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like this is going to regress happy-path compile-time perf? (I don't expect by much but still...)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see no way of doing this without collecting the resolved types for the general case (there's a lazy way to do it that would only work with fully resolved types in the arguments).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah sure, just pointing out that there is a cost to this, which may be totally acceptable. :)
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This file shows the case where we duplicate the errors. We should be able to elide the error pointing at Iterator::next with some judicious use of Ty::Error.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
estebank
commented
Sep 16, 2019
@oli-obkd38e090#diff-4cee39a7c18e8b5ec52efe4563c547fbR7-R11 😀 |
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.
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
Sep 19, 2019
r? @Centril r=me with the elaboration you gave me privately on Discord added as a comment in some fashion. :) |
estebank
commented
Sep 19, 2019
@bors r=Centril |
bors
commented
Sep 19, 2019
📌 Commit c34d9e6 has been approved by |
When possible point at argument causing item obligation failure Fixrust-lang#41781, fixrust-lang#42855, fixrust-lang#46658, fixrust-lang#48099, fixrust-lang#63143.
Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #64136 (Document From trait for LhsExpr in parser) - #64342 (factor out pluralisation remains after #64280) - #64387 (Fix redundant semicolon lint interaction with proc macro attributes) - #64498 (When possible point at argument causing item obligation failure) - #64615 (rustbuild: Turn down compression on exe installers) - #64617 (rustbuild: Turn down compression on msi installers) - #64618 (rustbuild: Improve output of `dist` step) - #64621 (Add Compatibility Notes to RELEASES.md for 1.38.0) Failed merges: r? @ghost
bors
commented
Sep 20, 2019
bors
commented
Sep 20, 2019
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
Either this PR or #64584 caused a major regression in rustc perf. It's hard to tell because the graph goes up on this PR, then down for a single run, then stabilizes again at the worse performance after #64584. I suggest backing out both PRs, opening new PRs, and then doing perf runs on both. That should make it clear which one cause the regression. cc @rust-lang/compiler (If I had to guess, I would guess this PR caused the regression.) |
Mark-Simulacrum
commented
Sep 23, 2019
See #64584 (comment) - I wouldn't do anything just yet. |
Fix#41781, fix#42855, fix#46658, fix#48099, fix#63143, fix#36775.