Silence unreachable code lint from await desugaring #64930
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
This commit silences the unreachable code lint when it originates from within a await desugaring. Signed-off-by: David Wood <david@davidtw.co>
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 870b47f has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Centril
added
beta-nominated
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 1, 2019
…it, r=petrochenkov Silence unreachable code lint from await desugaring Fixes rust-lang#61798. This PR silences the unreachable code lint when it originates from within an await desugaring.
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 1, 2019
…it, r=petrochenkov Silence unreachable code lint from await desugaring Fixes rust-lang#61798. This PR silences the unreachable code lint when it originates from within an await desugaring.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 1, 2019
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - #63674 (syntax: Support modern attribute syntax in the `meta` matcher) - #63931 (Stabilize macros in some more positions) - #64887 (syntax: recover trailing `|` in or-patterns) - #64895 (async/await: improve not-send errors) - #64896 (Remove legacy grammar) - #64907 (A small amount of tidying-up factored out from PR #64648) - #64928 (Add tests for some issues) - #64930 (Silence unreachable code lint from await desugaring) - #64935 (Improve code clarity) - #64937 (Deduplicate closure type errors) Failed merges: r? @ghost
|
discussed at rustc mtg. accepted for beta backport. |
pnkfelix
added
the
beta-accepted
Mark-Simulacrum
removed
the
beta-nominated
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 24, 2019
[beta] backport rollup This includes a bunch of PRs: * Fix redundant semicolon lint interaction with proc macro attributes #64387 * Upgrade async/await to "used" keywords. #64875 * syntax: fix dropping of attribute on first param of non-method assocated fn #64894 * async/await: improve not-send errors #64895 * Silence unreachable code lint from await desugaring #64930 * Always mark rust and rust-call abi's as unwind #65020 * Account for macro invocation in `let mut $pat` diagnostic. #65123 * Ensure that associated `async fn`s have unique fresh param names #65142 * Add troubleshooting section to PGO chapter in rustc book. #65402 * Upgrade GCC to 8.3.0, glibc to 1.17.0 and crosstool-ng to 1.24.0 for dist-armv7-linux #65302 * Optimize `try_expand_impl_trait_type` #65293 * use precalculated dominators in explain_borrow #65172 * Fix ICE #64964 #64989
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 26, 2019
[beta] backport rollup This includes a bunch of PRs: * Fix redundant semicolon lint interaction with proc macro attributes #64387 * Upgrade async/await to "used" keywords. #64875 * syntax: fix dropping of attribute on first param of non-method assocated fn #64894 * async/await: improve not-send errors #64895 * Silence unreachable code lint from await desugaring #64930 * Always mark rust and rust-call abi's as unwind #65020 * Account for macro invocation in `let mut $pat` diagnostic. #65123 * Ensure that associated `async fn`s have unique fresh param names #65142 * Add troubleshooting section to PGO chapter in rustc book. #65402 * Upgrade GCC to 8.3.0, glibc to 1.17.0 and crosstool-ng to 1.24.0 for dist-armv7-linux #65302 * Optimize `try_expand_impl_trait_type` #65293 * use precalculated dominators in explain_borrow #65172 * Fix ICE #64964 #64989 * [beta] Revert "Auto merge of #62948 - matklad:failable-file-loading, r=petro… #65273 * save-analysis: Don't ICE when resolving qualified type paths in struct members #65353 * save-analysis: Nest tables when processing impl block definitions #65511 * Avoid ICE when checking `Destination` of `break` inside a closure #65518 * Avoid ICE when adjusting bad self ty #65755 * workaround msys2 bug #65762
tgross35
added a commit
to tgross35/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2024
… r=fmease
Properly mark loop as diverging if it has no breaks
Due to specifics about the desugaring of the `.await` operator, HIR typeck doesn't recognize that `.await`ing an `impl Future<Output = !>` will diverge in the same way as calling a `fn() -> !`.
This is because the await operator desugars to approximately:
```rust
loop {
match future.poll(...) {
Poll::Ready(x) => break x,
Poll::Pending => {}
}
}
```
We know that the value of `x` is `!`, however since `break` is a coercion site, we coerce `!` to some `?0` (the type of the loop expression). Then since the type of the `loop {...}` expression is `?0`, we will not detect the loop as diverging like we do with other expressions that evaluate to `!`:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/0b5eb7ba7bd796fb39c8bb6acd9ef6c140f28b65/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/expr.rs#L240-L243
We can technically fix this in two ways:
1. Make coercion of loop exprs more eagerly result in a type of `!` when the only break expressions have type `!`.
2. Make loops understand that all of that if they have only diverging break values, then the loop diverges as well.
(1.) likely has negative effects on inference, and seems like a weird special case to drill into coercion. However, it turns out that (2.) is very easy to implement, we already record whether a loop has any break expressions, and when we do so, we actually skip over any break expressions with diverging values!:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/0b5eb7ba7bd796fb39c8bb6acd9ef6c140f28b65/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/expr.rs#L713-L716
Thus, we can consider the loop as diverging if we see that it has no breaks, which is the change implemented in this PR.
This is not usually a problem in regular code for two reasons:
1. In regular code, we already mark `break diverging()` as unreachable if `diverging()` is unreachable. We don't do this for `.await`, since we suppress unreachable errors within `.await` (rust-lang#64930). Un-suppressing this code will result in spurious unreachable expression errors pointing to internal await machinery.
3. In loops that truly have no breaks (e.g. `loop {}`), we already evaluate the type of the loop to `!`, so this special case is kinda moot. This only affects loops that have `break`s with values of type `!`.
Thus, this seems like a change that may affect more code than just `.await`, but it likely does not in meaningful ways; if it does, it's certainly correct to apply.
Fixes rust-lang#128434
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2024
… r=fmease
Properly mark loop as diverging if it has no breaks
Due to specifics about the desugaring of the `.await` operator, HIR typeck doesn't recognize that `.await`ing an `impl Future<Output = !>` will diverge in the same way as calling a `fn() -> !`.
This is because the await operator desugars to approximately:
```rust
loop {
match future.poll(...) {
Poll::Ready(x) => break x,
Poll::Pending => {}
}
}
```
We know that the value of `x` is `!`, however since `break` is a coercion site, we coerce `!` to some `?0` (the type of the loop expression). Then since the type of the `loop {...}` expression is `?0`, we will not detect the loop as diverging like we do with other expressions that evaluate to `!`:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/0b5eb7ba7bd796fb39c8bb6acd9ef6c140f28b65/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/expr.rs#L240-L243
We can technically fix this in two ways:
1. Make coercion of loop exprs more eagerly result in a type of `!` when the only break expressions have type `!`.
2. Make loops understand that all of that if they have only diverging break values, then the loop diverges as well.
(1.) likely has negative effects on inference, and seems like a weird special case to drill into coercion. However, it turns out that (2.) is very easy to implement, we already record whether a loop has any break expressions, and when we do so, we actually skip over any break expressions with diverging values!:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/0b5eb7ba7bd796fb39c8bb6acd9ef6c140f28b65/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/expr.rs#L713-L716
Thus, we can consider the loop as diverging if we see that it has no breaks, which is the change implemented in this PR.
This is not usually a problem in regular code for two reasons:
1. In regular code, we already mark `break diverging()` as unreachable if `diverging()` is unreachable. We don't do this for `.await`, since we suppress unreachable errors within `.await` (rust-lang#64930). Un-suppressing this code will result in spurious unreachable expression errors pointing to internal await machinery.
3. In loops that truly have no breaks (e.g. `loop {}`), we already evaluate the type of the loop to `!`, so this special case is kinda moot. This only affects loops that have `break`s with values of type `!`.
Thus, this seems like a change that may affect more code than just `.await`, but it likely does not in meaningful ways; if it does, it's certainly correct to apply.
Fixes rust-lang#128434
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#128443 - compiler-errors:async-unreachable, r=fmease Properly mark loop as diverging if it has no breaks Due to specifics about the desugaring of the `.await` operator, HIR typeck doesn't recognize that `.await`ing an `impl Future<Output = !>` will diverge in the same way as calling a `fn() -> !`. This is because the await operator desugars to approximately: ```rust loop { match future.poll(...) { Poll::Ready(x) => break x, Poll::Pending => {} } } ``` We know that the value of `x` is `!`, however since `break` is a coercion site, we coerce `!` to some `?0` (the type of the loop expression). Then since the type of the `loop {...}` expression is `?0`, we will not detect the loop as diverging like we do with other expressions that evaluate to `!`: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/0b5eb7ba7bd796fb39c8bb6acd9ef6c140f28b65/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/expr.rs#L240-L243 We can technically fix this in two ways: 1. Make coercion of loop exprs more eagerly result in a type of `!` when the only break expressions have type `!`. 2. Make loops understand that all of that if they have only diverging break values, then the loop diverges as well. (1.) likely has negative effects on inference, and seems like a weird special case to drill into coercion. However, it turns out that (2.) is very easy to implement, we already record whether a loop has any break expressions, and when we do so, we actually skip over any break expressions with diverging values!: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/0b5eb7ba7bd796fb39c8bb6acd9ef6c140f28b65/compiler/rustc_hir_typeck/src/expr.rs#L713-L716 Thus, we can consider the loop as diverging if we see that it has no breaks, which is the change implemented in this PR. This is not usually a problem in regular code for two reasons: 1. In regular code, we already mark `break diverging()` as unreachable if `diverging()` is unreachable. We don't do this for `.await`, since we suppress unreachable errors within `.await` (rust-lang#64930). Un-suppressing this code will result in spurious unreachable expression errors pointing to internal await machinery. 3. In loops that truly have no breaks (e.g. `loop {}`), we already evaluate the type of the loop to `!`, so this special case is kinda moot. This only affects loops that have `break`s with values of type `!`. Thus, this seems like a change that may affect more code than just `.await`, but it likely does not in meaningful ways; if it does, it's certainly correct to apply. Fixes rust-lang#128434
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.
Fixes #61798.
This PR silences the unreachable code lint when it originates from within an await desugaring.