-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[ICE] Encountered errors resolving bounds after type-checking #77653
Comments
@rustbot ping cleanup Would be nice to find the regression and an MCVE. |
Hey Cleanup Crew ICE-breakers! This bug has been identified as a good cc @AminArria @camelid @chrissimpkins @contrun @DutchGhost @elshize @ethanboxx @h-michael @HallerPatrick @hdhoang @hellow554 @imtsuki @JamesPatrickGill @kanru @KarlK90 @LeSeulArtichaut @MAdrianMattocks @matheus-consoli @mental32 @nmccarty @Noah-Kennedy @pard68 @PeytonT @pierreN @Redblueflame @RobbieClarken @RobertoSnap @robjtede @SarthakSingh31 @shekohex @sinato @smmalis37 @spastorino @Stupremee @tamuhey @turboladen @woshilapin @yerke |
Assigning |
This repository is huge (almost 1000 crates to compile including the dependencies, wow) - I’m working on reducing the code currently. I can also do a bisection once it’s a bit smaller. This comment is just to save duplicate work on reduction efforts. |
Can you try the same regression as in #77656? Just two versions to see if it has regressed in the same commit |
I’m still having the dependency on a having WASM target installed. I wouldn’t know how to get those installed from/for the build artifacts that bisection uses. I can test the relevant nightlies though to get a less fine-grained result. I can also build |
@steffahn if you use |
Okay, interesting. It currently gives me an error though (FYI, I’m not building on top-level but reducing my way through the workspace members)
For the time being, I confirmed that it regresses with
Which should be the one containing #77656 (I think..) |
Ahh sorry 🙈 |
I see, that works. @Stupremee I can confirm, it’s the same regression, 08e2d46. |
Small example that I think is the same issue. And an ICE on stable. trait Proj {
type S;
}
trait Base<T> {
fn is_base(&self);
}
trait Der<B: Proj>: Base<B::S> {
fn is_der(&self);
}
fn f<P: Proj>(obj: &dyn Der<P>) {
// Uncomment for ICE on stable
// obj.is_base();
obj.is_der();
}
impl Proj for () {
type S = ();
}
pub fn main() {
let x: fn(_) = f::<()>;
} |
For matthewjasper's example: searched nightlies: from nightly-2019-01-01 to nightly-2020-10-08 bisected with cargo-bisect-rustc v0.5.2Host triple: x86_64-apple-darwin cargo bisect-rustc --preserve --regress=ice --start=2019-01-01 EDIT: This is the second ICE in the example, with the line uncommented. |
That would make it potentially related to #75961 |
I think the ICE from matthewjasper's example is actually different from the one for this issue:
Should we open a new issue? EDIT: This is the second ICE in the example, with the line uncommented. |
Just to clarify in case there was a misunderstanding, @matthewjasper provided an example that ICEs in two different ways. With the line left commented out, it does regress with 08e2d46, too. (Just tested that.) Only with the line uncommented, @camelid ’s bisection applies. |
Oops, thank you for catching that! I didn't notice there were two ICEs in the example :) I edited my comments to reflect that. |
The below content was posted by @bkchr, I moved it into a separated issue to keep track of the ICE.
Hey, so I tried porting our code to compile with latest nightly and I almost got it working but ultimately it ended with an internal compiler error:
I created a branch that fails with this or a similar ICE when you run
cargo test --all
. You can find it here: https://github.com/paritytech/substrate/tree/bkchr-fix-for-latest-nightlyOriginally posted by @bkchr in #77638 (comment)
@rustbot modify labels: regression-from-stable-to-nightly E-needs-mcve A-associated-items
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: