Fix async closures in CTFE #120950
Merged
Fix async closures in CTFE #120950
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
S-waiting-on-review
|
Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy cc @rust-lang/clippy The Miri subtree was changed cc @rust-lang/miri Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine cc @rust-lang/miri Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt |
RalfJung
reviewed
Feb 12, 2024
| /// These are all represented with the same `ExprKind::Closure` in the AST and HIR, | ||
| /// which makes it difficult to distinguish these during def collection. Therefore, | ||
| /// we treat them all the same, and code which needs to distinguish them can match | ||
| /// or `hir::ClosureKind` or `type_of`. | ||
| Closure, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe this should also become ClosureLike then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's probably gonna touch a lot of code, let's do that separately
|
r=me on the compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/interpret/validity.rs changes. I don't understand the code in ensure_monomorphic_enough so I can't comment on that one. |
|
@bors r=RalfJung,oli-obk |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 12, 2024
…, r=RalfJung,oli-obk Fix async closures in CTFE First commit renames `is_coroutine_or_closure` into `is_closure_like`, because `is_coroutine_or_closure_or_coroutine_closure` seems confusing and long. Second commit fixes some forgotten cases where we want to handle `TyKind::CoroutineClosure` the same as closures and coroutines. The test exercises the change to `ValidityVisitor::aggregate_field_path_elem` which is the source of rust-lang#120946, but not the change to `UsedParamsNeedSubstVisitor`, though I feel like it's not that big of a deal. Let me know if you'd like for me to look into constructing a test for the latter, though I have no idea what it'd look like (we can't assert against `TooGeneric` anywhere?). Fixes rust-lang#120946 r? oli-obk cc `@RalfJung`
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 12, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#118983 (Warn on references casting to bigger memory layout) - rust-lang#119451 (Gate PR CI on clippy correctness lints) - rust-lang#120273 (compiletest: few naive improvements) - rust-lang#120889 (Implement Instant for UEFI) - rust-lang#120938 (Implement sys/thread for UEFI) - rust-lang#120950 (Fix async closures in CTFE) - rust-lang#120958 (Dejargonize `subst`) - rust-lang#120965 (Add lahfsahf and prfchw target feature) - rust-lang#120970 (add another test for promoteds-in-static) - rust-lang#120979 (Update books) Failed merges: - rust-lang#120973 (allow static_mut_ref in some tests that specifically test mutable statics) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#118983 (Warn on references casting to bigger memory layout) - rust-lang#119451 (Gate PR CI on clippy correctness lints) - rust-lang#120273 (compiletest: few naive improvements) - rust-lang#120950 (Fix async closures in CTFE) - rust-lang#120958 (Dejargonize `subst`) - rust-lang#120965 (Add lahfsahf and prfchw target feature) - rust-lang#120970 (add another test for promoteds-in-static) - rust-lang#120979 (Update books) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#120950 - compiler-errors:miri-async-closurs, r=RalfJung,oli-obk Fix async closures in CTFE First commit renames `is_coroutine_or_closure` into `is_closure_like`, because `is_coroutine_or_closure_or_coroutine_closure` seems confusing and long. Second commit fixes some forgotten cases where we want to handle `TyKind::CoroutineClosure` the same as closures and coroutines. The test exercises the change to `ValidityVisitor::aggregate_field_path_elem` which is the source of rust-lang#120946, but not the change to `UsedParamsNeedSubstVisitor`, though I feel like it's not that big of a deal. Let me know if you'd like for me to look into constructing a test for the latter, though I have no idea what it'd look like (we can't assert against `TooGeneric` anywhere?). Fixes rust-lang#120946 r? oli-obk cc ``@RalfJung``
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 26, 2024
…, r=RalfJung,oli-obk Fix async closures in CTFE First commit renames `is_coroutine_or_closure` into `is_closure_like`, because `is_coroutine_or_closure_or_coroutine_closure` seems confusing and long. Second commit fixes some forgotten cases where we want to handle `TyKind::CoroutineClosure` the same as closures and coroutines. The test exercises the change to `ValidityVisitor::aggregate_field_path_elem` which is the source of rust-lang#120946, but not the change to `UsedParamsNeedSubstVisitor`, though I feel like it's not that big of a deal. Let me know if you'd like for me to look into constructing a test for the latter, though I have no idea what it'd look like (we can't assert against `TooGeneric` anywhere?). Fixes rust-lang#120946 r? oli-obk cc ``@RalfJung``
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.
First commit renames
is_coroutine_or_closureintois_closure_like, becauseis_coroutine_or_closure_or_coroutine_closureseems confusing and long.Second commit fixes some forgotten cases where we want to handle
TyKind::CoroutineClosurethe same as closures and coroutines.The test exercises the change to
ValidityVisitor::aggregate_field_path_elemwhich is the source of #120946, but not the change toUsedParamsNeedSubstVisitor, though I feel like it's not that big of a deal. Let me know if you'd like for me to look into constructing a test for the latter, though I have no idea what it'd look like (we can't assert againstTooGenericanywhere?).Fixes #120946
r? oli-obk cc @RalfJung