Use PostBorrowckAnalysis in check_coroutine_obligations
#134742
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
👍 nice @bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2025
…ysis, r=lcnr
Use `PostBorrowckAnalysis` in `check_coroutine_obligations`
This currently errors with:
```
error: concrete type differs from previous defining opaque type use
--> tests/ui/coroutine/issue-52304.rs:10:21
|
10 | pub fn example() -> impl Coroutine {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `{example::{closure#0} upvar_tys=() resume_ty=() yield_ty=&'{erased} i32 return_ty=() witness={example::{closure#0}}}`, got `{example::{closure#0} upvar_tys=() resume_ty=() yield_ty=&'static i32 return_ty=() witness={example::{closure#0}}}`
|
= note: previous use here
```
This is because we end up redefining the opaque in `check_coroutine_obligations` but with the `yield_ty = &'erased i32` from hir typeck, which causes the *equality* check for opaques to fail.
The coroutine obligtions in question (when `-Znext-solver` is enabled) are:
```
Binder { value: TraitPredicate(<Opaque(DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), []) as std::marker::Sized>, polarity:Positive), bound_vars: [] }
Binder { value: AliasRelate(Term::Ty(Alias(Opaque, AliasTy { args: [], def_id: DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), .. })), Equate, Term::Ty(Coroutine(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), [(), (), &'{erased} i32, (), CoroutineWitness(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), []), ()]))), bound_vars: [] }
Binder { value: AliasRelate(Term::Ty(Coroutine(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), [(), (), &'{erased} i32, (), CoroutineWitness(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), []), ()])), Subtype, Term::Ty(Alias(Opaque, AliasTy { args: [], def_id: DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), .. }))), bound_vars: [] }
```
Ignoring the fact that we end up stalling some really dumb obligations here (lol), I think it makes more sense for us to be using post borrowck analysis for this check anyways.
r? lcnr
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2025
…iaskrgr Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#134742 (Use `PostBorrowckAnalysis` in `check_coroutine_obligations`) - rust-lang#134771 (Report correct `SelectionError` for `ConstArgHasType` in new solver fulfill) - rust-lang#135146 (Don't enable anyhow's `backtrace` feature in opt-dist) - rust-lang#135153 (chore: remove redundant words in comment) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2025
…ysis, r=lcnr
Use `PostBorrowckAnalysis` in `check_coroutine_obligations`
This currently errors with:
```
error: concrete type differs from previous defining opaque type use
--> tests/ui/coroutine/issue-52304.rs:10:21
|
10 | pub fn example() -> impl Coroutine {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `{example::{closure#0} upvar_tys=() resume_ty=() yield_ty=&'{erased} i32 return_ty=() witness={example::{closure#0}}}`, got `{example::{closure#0} upvar_tys=() resume_ty=() yield_ty=&'static i32 return_ty=() witness={example::{closure#0}}}`
|
= note: previous use here
```
This is because we end up redefining the opaque in `check_coroutine_obligations` but with the `yield_ty = &'erased i32` from hir typeck, which causes the *equality* check for opaques to fail.
The coroutine obligtions in question (when `-Znext-solver` is enabled) are:
```
Binder { value: TraitPredicate(<Opaque(DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), []) as std::marker::Sized>, polarity:Positive), bound_vars: [] }
Binder { value: AliasRelate(Term::Ty(Alias(Opaque, AliasTy { args: [], def_id: DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), .. })), Equate, Term::Ty(Coroutine(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), [(), (), &'{erased} i32, (), CoroutineWitness(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), []), ()]))), bound_vars: [] }
Binder { value: AliasRelate(Term::Ty(Coroutine(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), [(), (), &'{erased} i32, (), CoroutineWitness(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), []), ()])), Subtype, Term::Ty(Alias(Opaque, AliasTy { args: [], def_id: DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), .. }))), bound_vars: [] }
```
Ignoring the fact that we end up stalling some really dumb obligations here (lol), I think it makes more sense for us to be using post borrowck analysis for this check anyways.
r? lcnr
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2025
…iaskrgr Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#134742 (Use `PostBorrowckAnalysis` in `check_coroutine_obligations`) - rust-lang#134951 (Suppress host effect predicates if underlying trait doesn't hold) - rust-lang#135097 (bootstrap: Consolidate coverage test suite steps into a single step) - rust-lang#135146 (Don't enable anyhow's `backtrace` feature in opt-dist) - rust-lang#135157 (Move the has_errors check in rustdoc back to after TyCtxt is created) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2025
Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#134742 (Use `PostBorrowckAnalysis` in `check_coroutine_obligations`) - rust-lang#134771 (Report correct `SelectionError` for `ConstArgHasType` in new solver fulfill) - rust-lang#134951 (Suppress host effect predicates if underlying trait doesn't hold) - rust-lang#135097 (bootstrap: Consolidate coverage test suite steps into a single step) - rust-lang#135146 (Don't enable anyhow's `backtrace` feature in opt-dist) - rust-lang#135153 (chore: remove redundant words in comment) - rust-lang#135157 (Move the has_errors check in rustdoc back to after TyCtxt is created) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2025
…iaskrgr Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#134742 (Use `PostBorrowckAnalysis` in `check_coroutine_obligations`) - rust-lang#134771 (Report correct `SelectionError` for `ConstArgHasType` in new solver fulfill) - rust-lang#134951 (Suppress host effect predicates if underlying trait doesn't hold) - rust-lang#135097 (bootstrap: Consolidate coverage test suite steps into a single step) - rust-lang#135146 (Don't enable anyhow's `backtrace` feature in opt-dist) - rust-lang#135153 (chore: remove redundant words in comment) - rust-lang#135157 (Move the has_errors check in rustdoc back to after TyCtxt is created) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#134742 - compiler-errors:post-borrowck-analysis, r=lcnr Use `PostBorrowckAnalysis` in `check_coroutine_obligations` This currently errors with: ``` error: concrete type differs from previous defining opaque type use --> tests/ui/coroutine/issue-52304.rs:10:21 | 10 | pub fn example() -> impl Coroutine { | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `{example::{closure#0} upvar_tys=() resume_ty=() yield_ty=&'{erased} i32 return_ty=() witness={example::{closure#0}}}`, got `{example::{closure#0} upvar_tys=() resume_ty=() yield_ty=&'static i32 return_ty=() witness={example::{closure#0}}}` | = note: previous use here ``` This is because we end up redefining the opaque in `check_coroutine_obligations` but with the `yield_ty = &'erased i32` from hir typeck, which causes the *equality* check for opaques to fail. The coroutine obligtions in question (when `-Znext-solver` is enabled) are: ``` Binder { value: TraitPredicate(<Opaque(DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), []) as std::marker::Sized>, polarity:Positive), bound_vars: [] } Binder { value: AliasRelate(Term::Ty(Alias(Opaque, AliasTy { args: [], def_id: DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), .. })), Equate, Term::Ty(Coroutine(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), [(), (), &'{erased} i32, (), CoroutineWitness(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), []), ()]))), bound_vars: [] } Binder { value: AliasRelate(Term::Ty(Coroutine(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), [(), (), &'{erased} i32, (), CoroutineWitness(DefId(0:6 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{closure#0}), []), ()])), Subtype, Term::Ty(Alias(Opaque, AliasTy { args: [], def_id: DefId(0:5 ~ issue_52304[4c6d]::example::{opaque#0}), .. }))), bound_vars: [] } ``` Ignoring the fact that we end up stalling some really dumb obligations here (lol), I think it makes more sense for us to be using post borrowck analysis for this check anyways. r? lcnr
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This currently errors with:
This is because we end up redefining the opaque in
check_coroutine_obligationsbut with theyield_ty = &'erased i32from hir typeck, which causes the equality check for opaques to fail.The coroutine obligtions in question (when
-Znext-solveris enabled) are:Ignoring the fact that we end up stalling some really dumb obligations here (lol), I think it makes more sense for us to be using post borrowck analysis for this check anyways.
r? lcnr