-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.2k
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
error/E0691: include alignment in error message #113913
Merged
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
r? @jackh726 (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
( |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Include the computed alignment of the violating field when rejecting transparent types with non-trivially aligned ZSTs. ZST member fields in transparent types must have an alignment of 1 (to ensure it does not raise the layout requirements of the transparent field). The current error message looks like this: LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]); | ^^^^^^^^ has alignment larger than 1 This patch changes the report to include the alignment of the violating field: LL | struct Foobar(u32, [u32; 0]); | ^^^^^^^^ has alignment of 4, which is larger than 1 In case of unknown alignments, it will yield: LL | struct Foobar<T>(u32, [T; 0]); | ^^^^^^ may have alignment larger than 1 This allows developers to get a better grasp why a specific field is rejected. Knowing the alignment of the violating field makes it easier to judge where that alignment-requirement originates, and thus hopefully provide better hints on how to mitigate the problem. This idea was proposed in 2022 in rust-lang#98071 as part of a bigger change. This commit simply extracts this error-message change, to decouple it from the other diagnostic improvements.
(fixed test assuming |
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 21, 2023
…iaskrgr Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#113887 (new solver: add a separate cache for coherence) - rust-lang#113910 (Add FnPtr ty to SMIR) - rust-lang#113913 (error/E0691: include alignment in error message) - rust-lang#113914 (rustc_target: drop duplicate code) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
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.
Include the computed alignment of the violating field when rejecting transparent types with non-trivially aligned ZSTs.
ZST member fields in transparent types must have an alignment of 1 (to ensure it does not raise the layout requirements of the transparent field). The current error message looks like this:
This patch changes the report to include the alignment of the violating field:
In case of unknown alignments, it will yield:
This allows developers to get a better grasp why a specific field is rejected. Knowing the alignment of the violating field makes it easier to judge where that alignment-requirement originates, and thus hopefully provide better hints on how to mitigate the problem.
This idea was proposed in 2022 in #98071 as part of a bigger change. This commit simply extracts this error-message change, to decouple it from the other diagnostic improvements.
(Originally proposed by @compiler-errors in #98071)