-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
simplify const params diagnostic on stable #95820
Conversation
r? @wesleywiser (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks 👍
While your approach works, I think that this code already was a bit more complex than necessary and should get cleaned up a bit while we're already here.
@@ -863,7 +863,9 @@ fn check_param_wf(tcx: TyCtxt<'_>, param: &hir::GenericParam<'_>) { | |||
} | |||
}; | |||
|
|||
if traits::search_for_structural_match_violation(param.span, tcx, ty).is_some() { | |||
if tcx.features().adt_const_params // structural matching only allowed with adt_const_params feature |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we already have a check for the adt_const_params
feature a few lines above. I would prefer to only have 1 branch for that. So pretty much
if tcx.features().adt_const_params {
// complex check¹
} else {
// simple check, completely ignoring structural equality
}
¹ It might be interesting to check whether function pointers are considered a structural match violation. If they are, you can completely avoid checking the ty
in that branch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah gotcha, thanks! Unfortunately it looks like function pointers (and raw pointers) aren't structural match violations, but just to check, my (simplistic) reasoning is based on removing the ty
check in the complex check case and then observing that the following test case successfully compiled, which I believe it shouldn't:
// revisions: full min
#![cfg_attr(full, feature(adt_const_params))]
#![cfg_attr(full, allow(incomplete_features))]
struct Test();
fn pass() {
println!("Hello, world!");
}
impl Test {
pub fn call_me(&self) {
self.test::<pass>();
}
fn test<const FN: fn()>(&self) {
//~^ ERROR: using function pointers as const generic parameters is forbidden
FN();
}
}
fn main() {
let x = Test();
x.call_me()
}
r? @lcnr |
thanks @bors r+ rollup |
📌 Commit 3b4589a has been approved by |
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#95671 (feat: Allow usage of sudo [while not accessing root] in x.py) - rust-lang#95716 (sess: warn w/out fluent bundle w/ user sysroot) - rust-lang#95820 (simplify const params diagnostic on stable) - rust-lang#95900 (Fix documentation for wasm32-unknown-unknown) - rust-lang#95947 (`impl const Default for Box<[T]>` and `Box<str>`) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Resolves #95150