Don't skip mir typeck if body has errors #111863
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
|
r? @b-naber (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
b-naber
approved these changes
May 24, 2023
rust-cloud-vms
bot
force-pushed
the
check-more-mir
branch
from
555ab51 to
b1387e7
Compare
|
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 24, 2023
…iaskrgr Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#111121 (Work around `rust-analyzer` false-positive type errors) - rust-lang#111759 (Leverage the interval property to precompute borrow kill points.) - rust-lang#111841 (Run AST validation on match guards correctly) - rust-lang#111862 (Split out opaque collection from from `type_of`) - rust-lang#111863 (Don't skip mir typeck if body has errors) - rust-lang#111903 (Migrate GUI colors test to original CSS color format) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Merged
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 18, 2024
cleanup `TypeVerifier` We should merge it with the `TypeChecker` as we no longer bail in cases where it encounters an error since rust-lang#111863. It's quite inconsistent whether a check lives in the verifier or the `TypeChecker`, so this feels like a quite impactful cleanup. I expect that for this we may want to change the `TypeChecker` to also be a MIR visitor 🤔 this is non-trivial so I didn't fully do it in this PR. Best reviewed commit by commit. r? `@compiler-errors` feel free to reassign however
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 23, 2024
cleanup `TypeVerifier` We should merge it with the `TypeChecker` as we no longer bail in cases where it encounters an error since rust-lang#111863. It's quite inconsistent whether a check lives in the verifier or the `TypeChecker`, so this feels like a quite impactful cleanup. I expect that for this we may want to change the `TypeChecker` to also be a MIR visitor 🤔 this is non-trivial so I didn't fully do it in this PR. Best reviewed commit by commit. r? `@compiler-errors` feel free to reassign however
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.
Comment says:
But there are no ICEs to be found. The comment is quite old, so perhaps something fixed it... maybe because the MIR typechecker is delaying span bugs rather than panicking via eager bugs? IDK
I'm generally inclined to fix the ICEs themselves that were to arise from this, rather than just totally skipping large parts of the compiler that have impacts on downstream logic (namely, our opaque type results are affected). Anyways, this happens on the error path, so it shouldn't really matter.
Fixes this hack: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111853/files#r1201501540