fix generalizer unsoundness #121479
Merged
fix generalizer unsoundness #121479
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? @nnethercote rustbot has assigned @nnethercote. Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Type relation code was changed |
I ended up getting confused while trying to flip the variances when flipping the order. Should be all right now
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
@bors r=compiler-errors rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#121434 (Fix rust-lang#121208 fallout) - rust-lang#121471 (When encountering `<&T as Clone>::clone(x)` because `T: Clone`, suggest `#[derive(Clone)]`) - rust-lang#121476 (remove `llvm.assertions=true` in compiler profile) - rust-lang#121479 (fix generalizer unsoundness) - rust-lang#121480 (Fix more rust-lang#121208 fallout) - rust-lang#121482 (Allow for a missing `adt_def` in `NamePrivacyVisitor`.) - rust-lang#121484 (coverage: Use variable name `this` in `CoverageGraph::from_mir`) - rust-lang#121487 (Explicitly call `emit_stashed_diagnostics`.) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#121434 (Fix rust-lang#121208 fallout) - rust-lang#121471 (When encountering `<&T as Clone>::clone(x)` because `T: Clone`, suggest `#[derive(Clone)]`) - rust-lang#121476 (remove `llvm.assertions=true` in compiler profile) - rust-lang#121479 (fix generalizer unsoundness) - rust-lang#121480 (Fix more rust-lang#121208 fallout) - rust-lang#121482 (Allow for a missing `adt_def` in `NamePrivacyVisitor`.) - rust-lang#121484 (coverage: Use variable name `this` in `CoverageGraph::from_mir`) - rust-lang#121487 (Explicitly call `emit_stashed_diagnostics`.) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#121479 - lcnr:fix-generalize, r=compiler-errors fix generalizer unsoundness I ended up getting confused while trying to flip the variances when flipping the order. Should be all right now. This is only exploitable when generalizing if the `ambient_variance` of the relation is `Contravariant`. This can currently only be the case in the NLL generalizer which only rarely generalizes, causing us to miss this regression. Very much an issue with rust-lang#121462 however.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in 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.
I ended up getting confused while trying to flip the variances when flipping the order. Should be all right now.
This is only exploitable when generalizing if the
ambient_varianceof the relation isContravariant. This can currently only be the case in the NLL generalizer which only rarely generalizes, causing us to miss this regression. Very much an issue with #121462 however.