fix panic on GAT #11957
Merged
fix panic on GAT #11957
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
Signed-off-by: Alex Chi <iskyzh@gmail.com>
|
bors r+ |
|
changelog fix (first contribution) fix GAT panics |
This was referenced Sep 29, 2022
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 3, 2022
internal: change generic parameter order
tl;dr: This PR changes the `Substitution` for trait items and methods like so:
```rust
trait Trait<TP, const CP: usize> { // note the implicit Self as first parameter
type Type<TC, const CC: usize>;
fn f<TC, const CC: usize>() {}
}
impl<TP, const CP: usize> S {
fn f<TC, const CC: usize>() {}
}
```
- before this PR: `[Self, TP, CP, TC, CC]` for each trait item, `[TP, CP, TC, CC]` for `S::f`
- after this PR: `[TC, CC, Self, TP, CP]` for each trait item, `[TC, CC, TP, CP]` for `S::f`
---
This PR "inverts" the generic parameters/arguments of an item and its parent. This is to fulfill [chalk's expectation](https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk/blob/d875af0ff196dd6430b5f5fd87a640fa5ab59d1e/chalk-solve/src/rust_ir.rs#L498-L502) on the order of generic arguments in `Substitution`s for generic associated types and it's one step forward for GATs support (hopefully). Although chalk doesn't put any constraint for other items, it feels more natural to get everything aligned than special casing GATs.
One complication is that `TyBuilder` now demands its users to pass in parent's `Substitution` upon construction unless it's obvious that the the item has no parent (e.g. an ADT never has parent). All users *should* already know the parent of the item in question, and without this, it cannot be easily reasoned about whether we're pushing the argument for the item or for its parent.
Some additional notes:
- f8f5a5e: This isn't related to the change, but I felt it's nicer.
- 78977cd: There's one major change here other than the generic param order: Default arguments are now bound by the same `Binder` as the item in question rather than a `Binder` limited to parameters they can refer to (i.e. arguments that syntactically appear before them). Now that the order of generic parameters is changed, it would be somewhat complicated to make such `Binder`s as before, and the "full" `Binder`s shouldn't be a problem because we already make sure that the default arguments don't refer to the generic arguments after them with `fallback_bound_vars()`.
- 7556f74: This is split from 4385d3d to make it easy to revert if it turns out that the GATs with const generics panic is actually not resolved with this PR. cc #11878 #11957
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.
Signed-off-by: Alex Chi iskyzh@gmail.com
This is still a workaround on GAT panic, and didn't solve the full problem. But at least we won't panic now. False positive is better than panicking and letting VSCode constantly pop out the warning 🤣
This PR is simple -- only apply the #11878 fix on const generics. For normal GATs, just follow the previous approach.
This PR fixes #11939, I've added it as a test case.
This PR didn't fully fix / #11923. But at least it won't panic now -- will only give a type mismatch error.
Not sure if it fixes / #11921, I'll test it later.
cc @flodiebold for review, thanks!