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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Don't implement Fn* traits for #[target_feature] functions #73306
Don't implement Fn* traits for #[target_feature] functions #73306
Changes from 3 commits
144206e
c98b4c8
8e899b1
51858da
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can we make this a
Option<DefId>
, where thedef_id
is the inner def-id...There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
...and then here we can use the
def-id
to give an error likefoo
has#[target_feature]
, instead offn() {foo}
, which is really unclear.Also, I think "unsafe to call" is perhaps a bit misleading. Maybe just "
foo
has#[target_feature]
annotations and therefore does not implement theFn
traits" or something like that?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking at the error text again, I'm not sure it's even necessary to repeat the name of the function, since it's in the help text as well (albeit with the somewhat confusing
fn() {foo}
). In my latest commit I've changed it to simply "#[target_feature]
functions do not implement theFn
traits". Do you think it's necessary to specify the function name in the error note?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, I don't.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I find this error is confusing and misleading, but at the same time it is consistent with error emitted for unsafe functions. Maybe we want to change it to better explain why foo doesn’t implement
Fn<()>
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added a note (open to phrasing suggestions), however I didn't remove this potentially misleading note since it's applied to all closures without any arguments. I'm not sure if it's within the scope of this PR to fix the
#[rustc_on_unimplemented]
on the Fn traits, but it's misleading forunsafe fn()
too, I think.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe add a note or change this note?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FWIW, this is misleading -- but then I think I would like to make this suggestion actually work, that's what #73631 is about.