-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Reject blanket object impls that are possibly incoherent wrt associated types #128126
Closed
compiler-errors
wants to merge
1
commit into
rust-lang:master
from
compiler-errors:incoherent-object-impl
Closed
Reject blanket object impls that are possibly incoherent wrt associated types #128126
compiler-errors
wants to merge
1
commit into
rust-lang:master
from
compiler-errors:incoherent-object-impl
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
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
labels
Jul 24, 2024
@bors try |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2024
…pl, r=<try> Reject blanket object impls that are possibly incoherent wrt associated types I would like to make this test more sophisticated. Namely, we should plug the unconstrained associated types of the object type with placeholders, and then detect cases where the placeholders *don't* end up being what the blanket impl would have predicted. In that case, we know that we can use a `dyn Trait` to abuse the unsoundness in rust-lang#57893. However, first I'd like to see what the most naïve fallout of this is. r? `@ghost`
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
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-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
labels
Jul 24, 2024
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #129817) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-author
Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.
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.
I would like to make this test more sophisticated.
Namely, we should plug the unconstrained associated types of the object type with placeholders, and then detect cases where the placeholders don't end up being what the blanket impl would have predicted. In that case, we know that we can use a
dyn Trait
to abuse the unsoundness in #57893.However, first I'd like to see what the most naïve fallout of this is.
r? @ghost