-
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
Point at correct argument when async fn output type lifetime disagrees with signature #92183
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
the
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
label
Dec 22, 2021
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
label
Dec 22, 2021
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
estebank
reviewed
Jan 10, 2022
@bors r=estebank |
📌 Commit 50ac0a3 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
and removed
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
labels
Jan 14, 2022
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 15, 2022
Point at correct argument when async fn output type lifetime disagrees with signature Fixes most of rust-lang#74256. ## Problems fixed This PR fixes a couple of related problems in the error reporting code. ### Highlighting the wrong argument First, the error reporting code was looking at the desugared return type of an `async fn` to decide which parameter to highlight. For example, a function like ```rust async fn async_fn(self: &Struct, f: &u32) -> &u32 { f } ``` desugars to ```rust async fn async_fn<'a, 'b>(self: &'a Struct, f: &'b u32) -> impl Future<Output = &'a u32> + 'a + 'b { f } ``` Since `f: &'b u32` is returned but the output type is `&'a u32`, the error would occur when checking that `'a: 'b`. The reporting code would look to see if the "offending" lifetime `'b` was included in the return type, and because the code was looking at the desugared future type, it was included. So it defaulted to reporting that the source of the other lifetime `'a` (the `self` type) was the problem, when it was really the type of `f`. (Note that if it had chosen instead to look at `'a` first, it too would have been included in the output type, and it would have arbitrarily reported the error (correctly this time) on the type of `f`.) Looking at the actual future type isn't useful for this reason; it captures all input lifetimes. Using the written return type for `async fn` solves this problem and results in less confusing error messages for the user. This isn't a perfect fix, unfortunately; writing the "manually desugared" form of the above function still results in the wrong parameter being highlighted. Looking at the output type of every `impl Future` return type doesn't feel like a very principled approach, though it might work. The problem would remain for function signatures that look like the desugared one above but use different traits. There may be deeper changes required to pinpoint which part of each type is conflicting. ### Lying about await point capture causing lifetime conflicts The second issue fixed by this PR is the unnecessary complexity in `try_report_anon_anon_conflict`. It turns out that the root cause I suggested in rust-lang#76547 (comment) wasn't really the root cause. Adding special handling to report that a variable was captured over an await point only made the error messages less correct and pointed to a problem other than the one that actually occurred. Given the above discussion, it's easy to see why: `async fn`s capture all input lifetimes in their return type, so holding an argument across an await point should never cause a lifetime conflict! Removing the special handling simplified the code and improved the error messages (though they still aren't very good!) ## Future work * Fix error reporting on the "desugared" form of this code * Get the `suggest_adding_lifetime_params` suggestion firing on these examples * cc rust-lang#42703, I think r? `@estebank`
Failed on windows in a rollup: #92925 (comment) |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.
and removed
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
labels
Jan 15, 2022
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #90986) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@bors r=estebank |
📌 Commit 698631e has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
and removed
S-waiting-on-author
Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.
labels
Jan 19, 2022
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 20, 2022
…askrgr Rollup of 13 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#89747 (Add MaybeUninit::(slice_)as_bytes(_mut)) - rust-lang#89764 (Fix variant index / discriminant confusion in uninhabited enum branching) - rust-lang#91606 (Stabilize `-Z print-link-args` as `--print link-args`) - rust-lang#91694 (rustdoc: decouple stability and const-stability) - rust-lang#92183 (Point at correct argument when async fn output type lifetime disagrees with signature) - rust-lang#92582 (improve `_` constants in item signature handling) - rust-lang#92680 (intra-doc: Use the impl's assoc item where possible) - rust-lang#92704 (Change lint message to be stronger for &T -> &mut T transmute) - rust-lang#92861 (Rustdoc mobile: put out-of-band info on its own line) - rust-lang#92992 (Help optimize out backtraces when disabled) - rust-lang#93038 (Fix star handling in block doc comments) - rust-lang#93108 (:arrow_up: rust-analyzer) - rust-lang#93112 (Fix CVE-2022-21658) Failed merges: 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.
Fixes most of #74256.
Problems fixed
This PR fixes a couple of related problems in the error reporting code.
Highlighting the wrong argument
First, the error reporting code was looking at the desugared return type of an
async fn
to decide which parameter to highlight. For example, a function likedesugars to
Since
f: &'b u32
is returned but the output type is&'a u32
, the error would occur when checking that'a: 'b
.The reporting code would look to see if the "offending" lifetime
'b
was included in the return type, and because the code was looking at the desugared future type, it was included. So it defaulted to reporting that the source of the other lifetime'a
(theself
type) was the problem, when it was really the type off
. (Note that if it had chosen instead to look at'a
first, it too would have been included in the output type, and it would have arbitrarily reported the error (correctly this time) on the type off
.)Looking at the actual future type isn't useful for this reason; it captures all input lifetimes. Using the written return type for
async fn
solves this problem and results in less confusing error messages for the user.This isn't a perfect fix, unfortunately; writing the "manually desugared" form of the above function still results in the wrong parameter being highlighted. Looking at the output type of every
impl Future
return type doesn't feel like a very principled approach, though it might work. The problem would remain for function signatures that look like the desugared one above but use different traits. There may be deeper changes required to pinpoint which part of each type is conflicting.Lying about await point capture causing lifetime conflicts
The second issue fixed by this PR is the unnecessary complexity in
try_report_anon_anon_conflict
. It turns out that the root cause I suggested in #76547 (comment) wasn't really the root cause. Adding special handling to report that a variable was captured over an await point only made the error messages less correct and pointed to a problem other than the one that actually occurred.Given the above discussion, it's easy to see why:
async fn
s capture all input lifetimes in their return type, so holding an argument across an await point should never cause a lifetime conflict! Removing the special handling simplified the code and improved the error messages (though they still aren't very good!)Future work
suggest_adding_lifetime_params
suggestion firing on these examplesr? @estebank