abolish ICE when pretty-printing async block #54777
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
Joshua Netterfield reported an ICE when the unused-parentheses lint triggered around an async block (rust-lang#54752). In order to compose an autofixable suggestion, the lint invokes the pretty-printer on the unnecessarily-parenthesized expression. (One wonders why the lint doesn't just use `SourceMap::span_to_snippet` instead, to preserve the formatting of the original source?—but for that, you'd have to ask the author of 5c9f806.) But then the pretty-printer panics when trying to call `<pprust::State as PrintState>::end` when `State.boxes` is empty. Empirically, the problem would seem to be solved if we start some "boxes" beforehand in the `ast::ExprKind::Async` arm of the big match in `print_expr_outer_attr_style`, exactly like we do in the immediately-preceding match arm for `ast::ExprKind::Block`—it would seem pretty ("pretty") reasonable for the pretty-printing of async blocks to work a lot like the pretty-printing of ordinary non-async blocks, right?? Of course, it would be shamefully cargo-culty to commit code on the basis of this kind of mere reasoning-by-analogy (in contrast to understanding the design of the pretty-printer in such detail that the correctness of the patch is comprehended with all the lucid certainty of mathematical proof, rather than being merely surmised by intuition). But maybe we care more about fixing the bug with high probability today, than with certainty in some indefinite hypothetical future? Maybe the effort is worth a fifth of a shirt?? Humbly resolves rust-lang#54752.
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Seems reasonable. Thanks! @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 1081bbb has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
pietroalbini
added a commit
to pietroalbini/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 3, 2018
…ertj abolish ICE when pretty-printing async block @jnetterf reported an ICE when the unused-parentheses lint triggered around an async block (rust-lang#54752). In order to compose an autofixable suggestion, the lint invokes the pretty-printer on the unnecessarily-parenthesized expression. (One wonders why the lint doesn't just use `SourceMap::span_to_snippet` instead, to preserve the formatting of the original source?—but to answer that, you'd have to ask the author of 5c9f806.) But then the pretty-printer panics when trying to call `<pprust::State as PrintState>::end` when `State.boxes` is empty. Empirically, the problem would seem to be solved if we start some "boxes" beforehand in the `ast::ExprKind::Async` arm of the big match in `print_expr_outer_attr_style`, exactly like we do in the immediately-preceding match arm for `ast::ExprKind::Block`—it would seem pretty ("pretty") reasonable for the pretty-printing of async blocks to work a lot like the pretty-printing of ordinary non-async blocks, right?? Of course, it would be shamefully cargo-culty to commit code on the basis of this kind of mere reasoning-by-analogy (in contrast to understanding the design of the pretty-printer in such detail that the correctness of the patch is comprehended with all the lucid certainty of mathematical proof, rather than being merely surmised by intuition). But maybe we care more about fixing the bug with high probability today, than with certainty in some indefinite hypothetical future? Maybe the effort is worth [a fifth of a shirt](https://hacktoberfest.digitalocean.com/stats/zackmdavis)?? Humbly resolves rust-lang#54752. r? @cramertj
pietroalbini
added a commit
to pietroalbini/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 4, 2018
…ertj abolish ICE when pretty-printing async block @jnetterf reported an ICE when the unused-parentheses lint triggered around an async block (rust-lang#54752). In order to compose an autofixable suggestion, the lint invokes the pretty-printer on the unnecessarily-parenthesized expression. (One wonders why the lint doesn't just use `SourceMap::span_to_snippet` instead, to preserve the formatting of the original source?—but to answer that, you'd have to ask the author of 5c9f806.) But then the pretty-printer panics when trying to call `<pprust::State as PrintState>::end` when `State.boxes` is empty. Empirically, the problem would seem to be solved if we start some "boxes" beforehand in the `ast::ExprKind::Async` arm of the big match in `print_expr_outer_attr_style`, exactly like we do in the immediately-preceding match arm for `ast::ExprKind::Block`—it would seem pretty ("pretty") reasonable for the pretty-printing of async blocks to work a lot like the pretty-printing of ordinary non-async blocks, right?? Of course, it would be shamefully cargo-culty to commit code on the basis of this kind of mere reasoning-by-analogy (in contrast to understanding the design of the pretty-printer in such detail that the correctness of the patch is comprehended with all the lucid certainty of mathematical proof, rather than being merely surmised by intuition). But maybe we care more about fixing the bug with high probability today, than with certainty in some indefinite hypothetical future? Maybe the effort is worth [a fifth of a shirt](https://hacktoberfest.digitalocean.com/stats/zackmdavis)?? Humbly resolves rust-lang#54752. r? @cramertj
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 4, 2018
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - #53523 (Add doc for impl From for Std Error) - #54746 (simplify some unused lints code) - #54761 (Make spec_extend use for_each()) - #54769 (Fix typo in CONTRIBUTING.md) - #54773 (Update a FIXME in memory.rs) - #54777 (abolish ICE when pretty-printing async block) - #54780 (Remove duplicate predicates in `explicit_predicates_of`) - #54788 (A handful of cleanups for rustc/mir) - #54789 (Introduce `TyKind::UnnormalizedProjection`) - #54795 (remove padding from multiline format string label) Failed merges: r? @ghost
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.
@jnetterf reported an ICE when the unused-parentheses lint triggered around an async block (#54752). In order to compose an autofixable suggestion, the lint invokes the pretty-printer on the unnecessarily-parenthesized expression. (One wonders why the lint doesn't just use
SourceMap::span_to_snippetinstead, to preserve the formatting of the original source?—but to answer that, you'd have to ask the author of 5c9f806.)But then the pretty-printer panics when trying to call
<pprust::State as PrintState>::endwhenState.boxesis empty. Empirically, the problem would seem to be solved if we start some "boxes" beforehand in theast::ExprKind::Asyncarm of the big match inprint_expr_outer_attr_style, exactly like we do in the immediately-preceding match arm forast::ExprKind::Block—it would seem pretty ("pretty") reasonable for the pretty-printing of async blocks to work a lot like the pretty-printing of ordinary non-async blocks, right??Of course, it would be shamefully cargo-culty to commit code on the basis of this kind of mere reasoning-by-analogy (in contrast to understanding the design of the pretty-printer in such detail that the correctness of the patch is comprehended with all the lucid certainty of mathematical proof, rather than being merely surmised by intuition). But maybe we care more about fixing the bug with high probability today, than with certainty in some indefinite hypothetical future? Maybe the effort is worth a fifth of a shirt??
Humbly resolves #54752.
r? @cramertj