jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Currently we do ensure on CI that works, but doctests are enabled as I couldn't figure out how to get this to work within bootstrap. However, that has let slip through. So ideally we can figure out these bootstrap issues and test rustdoc inside on rustc CI.
Here's what currently happens: shows a similar error. So... probably we're using the wrong rustdoc? I assume it's the bootstrap rustdoc, if that's a thing? I can't even see a rustdoc being built in the build log. We want the rustdoc that is produced by stage 0 here, since we are testing the Miri produced by stage 0. How do we get that? Cc
looks to be the reason we're running a random rustdoc here. I suspect we'll need to thread through a custom bootstrap env variable, since IIRC there's no RUSTDOC_WRAPPER that miri can use to thread state. Alternatively it might work to adjust miri such that it remembers which toolchain is running earlier, but I suspect that'll be harder. As-is though it's almost certainly semi-broken for any Rust user doing something like presumably, where their default toolchain isn't nightly?
It seems to be working, AFAIK rustup ensures that nested calls use the -specified toolchain. Or maybe we are just lucky... But yes we should in the outermost wrapper, determine which rustdoc cargo would invoke using the same logic as cargo store that in a miri-private env var invoke that in I assume however we'll also need further changes in how bootstrap invokes cargo-miri to tell it where the right rustdoc lives? Currently we're not even building rustdoc so something surely needs to change in bootstrap. I see this snippet a few times, is that all we need?
Yeah, I'd expect that to be enough to start with at least. Also potentially relevant: If we're already using somewhere in there (we should be, probably?) then that should already get mostly setup, see here: ,
We do that already: Unless you are trying stage 0, you should be able to see rustdoc compilation in the build logs.
This is stage 0. It should still have to build rustdoc, stage 0 Miri needs stage 0 rustdoc (not bootstrap rustdoc) for its doctests.
(...) ah fun, so if we invoke RUSTDOC we'll actually invoke bootstrap's rustdoc wrapper. We'll have to see if having both Miri and that wrapper around will work.^^
Never mind, that was for a build. For stage 0 this doesn't happen. I don't think this can work though... The staging with Miri is a bit weird; we need a stage 1 std as well for our stage 0 tests. Specifically we need a host sysroot that was built with a compiler that "is the same as" Miri, i.e. that is fully compatible. (The is wrong, it's not the compiler that built Miri.) This was needed to make build scripts and proc macros work in .
Yes, and if you want to use the actual rustdoc without wrapper, you can invoke . I tried using env instead of plain "rustdoc" and this is the output:
I had to manually pass from the cargo miri test caller; it turns out we are not passing it by default (or it somehow gets removed later?). Anyway, this is how I tested it:
Yeah currently this does not work due to But you have already come closer than I did. :) Was that with or stage 1? Maybe is ?
I guess that needs to be resolved first before we enable doctests on cargo miri test ? It was stage 1. Yeah, it seems like.
Yes. must continue working. I don't want to always build rustc twice when working on Miri in the tree.^^ But if necessary we could enable doc-tests only for higher stages... that would still be better than the status quo.
<!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- If you're using the stable version of the compiler, you should also check if the bug also exists in the beta or nightly versions. --: <!-- Include a backtrace in the code block by setting in your environment. E.g. . --<details<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
`
label +S-bug-has-mcve
What is the expected output here? Can this actually compile, and if so, what does refer to?
I tried this code (): I expected to see this happen: rustc outputs an error saying that I need to add the and traits on . Instead, this happened: which is jarring to see, and unhelpful, because HashMap does support Index, but only with particular trait bounds on . <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOT_END --
The reduced case: works as expected, perhaps it is caused when the implementer is not from the local crate?
claim
<!-- Thank you for creating a tracking issue! Tracking issues are for tracking a feature from implementation to stabilization. Make sure to include the relevant RFC for the feature if it has one. If the new feature is small, it may be fine to skip the RFC process. In that case, you can use use in your initial implementation PR. The reviewer will ask you to open a tracking issue if they agree your feature can be without an RFC. --Feature gate: This is a tracking issue for . The feature adds the method to , which allow a safe transformation from a to a . [x] [x] [ ] None yet.
It's from a , right? The nesting is a bit odd. But I guess it is what comes up in practice?
Ah, yes, sorry — fixed!
Are there any remaining blockers on this? It's a pretty useful function for blanket impls for traits with poll methods (e.g. Future already uses it in its impl).
Not that I know of — given it touches the machinery, I suspect it should go through an actual FCP, but I'll let others be the judge of that :)
Currently this method is located in its own solitary impl block: I'd like to consider changing it to: Some advantages: Synergy with the existing and signatures (stable since Rust 1.33) Lifetime elision reduces noise in the signature Turbofish less verbose: vs
Any concern blocks this from stablization?
I agree — that is better :+1:
Would it be possible to start an FCP on this?
fcp merge  is like , but without enforcing an unnecessary . It is like , but is unconditionally safe. The use case arises in real-world code when you are implementing a trait that takes where the Self type of your impl is . So what you have is something like , and want to delegate to the impl for which takes . Some examples: In tokio:  In hyper:  In futures:  In actix:  In libcore:
Team member has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: [x] [x] [x] [ ] [ ] No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period.
If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
:bell: This is now entering its final comment period, as per the . :bell:
The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the , is now complete. As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed. This will be merged soon.
I wrote code that looked like this while not having my brain turned on 100%. Due to said brain not functioning, it took me a while to understand what rustc was trying to tell me with the message pointing to the pattern with the text . sure looked like a unit variant to me! What rustc was trying to tell me was that the definition of the variant was a struct variant ("found struct variant") and my pattern wasn't matching the definition ("this pattern you specified looks like it's trying to match a variant that is not a unit struct, unit variant or constant"). The change I needed to make was adding to my pattern, because I was trying to distinguish different variants from each other, not use pieces within the variants. Suggesting seems like a decent starting point to me, but there could definitely be cases I'm not considering here and I'm totally open to hearing that No response No response <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
WEIRD this PR looks like it implements what I wish rustc did: but the test files in that PR say they're for and I'm getting
Aha ok this test shows that for tuple variants, rustc will suggest adding : and that test also shows that rustc isn't suggesting anything for struct variants!
Aha and it looks like adding struct fields was more complex so that's why it wasn't done?
claim
Not sure how helpful those notes are but I put them in here. Working on a web application using Sycamore.
What's the code that induced this compiler panic?
label +E-needs-mcve
This happened to me with . Removing a whitespace at the end of a line made the compiler panic. I attach a minimized workspace to reproduce the crash. What's funny is that there is a file () where deleting even just one character makes the crash disappear.
Given that this automated(?) reduction is still a big workspace, I'm actually going to leave the here because my hunch is this is still probably further minimizable, but thank you! Entirely possible I'm wrong, and this should be reduced enough to go by.
A slightly smaller ICE reproducer:
It appears the content after the function name and parameters , starting after the return , ending at the function body's enclosing brace, will trigger the ICE. If I change the lifetime name to shorter than 3 characters, it does not ICE, e.g. doesn't ice, but will.
I think I found the issue: it has to do with interning. Specifically, if you manage to fit a function of the following signature to somewhere around (defined in ) it will trigger some kind of edge case in span data interning and cause the to be confused with (or for some other cause that lead to this). Minimal reproducer is just and longer lifetime names will also trigger ICE.
Can someone else try to see if this ICEs for them? I can reproduce the ICE on nightly but stable seems to handle it just fine.
searched nightlies: from nightly-2022-01-01 to nightly-2023-02-10 regressed nightly: nightly-2023-01-03 searched commit range: regressed commit: <details<summarybisected with <a href=''cargo-bisect-rustc</av0.6.5</summaryHost triple: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Reproduce with: </details
The bug is that . The "inline format with parent" should check than .
The feature allows calling any expression of a tuple-like constructor in a : cc
Implemented on 2019-06-07 by in which was reviewed by
Is there anything else needs to be done to resolve this issue?
FCP and stabilization pull request.
Do you think you have time to write a report (e.g. in the style of ) and amend the reference after?
I propose that we stabilize . Tracking issue: Version target: 1.40 (2019-11-05 =beta, 2019-12-19 =stable). Tuple struct and tuple variant constructors are now considered to be constant functions. As such a call expression where the callee has a tuple struct or variant constructor "function item" type can be called : Consistency with other . This should also ensure that constructors implement traits and can be coerced to function pointers, if they are introduced. - Tests various syntactic forms, use in both and items, and constructors in both the current and extern crates. The case in should also get a test.
Thanks! Could you embed this report in a PR with the aforementioned test there as well? I'll FCP that PR.
When using to create an enum variant in Rust 1.37+, we get an error: results in: but if the enum is constructed explicitly, the compilation succeeds: Looking at , it looks like should be considered a with . Playground links for both variants: ,
Duplicate of (will close in a bit). It seems like folks open this issue because on stable, the error message does not point to the tracking issue, e.g. you don't see: can we fix this?
I think we should just stabilize it
Is this diagnostics problem specific to this feature gate? I meant a more general fix to const-fn related gates.
Not sure. I thought we're using the normal feature gate infra
Reopening this to make sure we add a test per
As it is currently written, E0207 talks entirely about type parameters. Now that const parameters also need to constrain implementations (under the same rules described for types), they also need to be mentioned in the error explanation. Since other items don't require const parameters to be used at all, we might also want to specifically call out this difference here. Furthermore, E0207 triggers if you use an unconstrained lifetime in an associated type, and this is completely unspecified by the error as well. <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
claim
<!-- ICE: Rustc '' 'thread 'rustc' panicked at 'called on a value'', 'thread 'rustc' panicked at 'called on a value'' File: --snippet: Version information Command: <!-- Include a backtrace in the code block by setting in your environment. E.g. . --<details<summary<strongProgram output</strong</summary<p</p</details<!-- query stack: [mirborrowck] borrow-checking [mirdropselaboratedandconstchecked] elaborating drops for [mirforctfe] caching mir of for CTFE [evaltoallocationraw] const-evaluating + checking [evaltovaltree] evaluating type-level constant [checkwellformed] checking that is well-formed [checkmodtypewf] checking that types are well-formed in top-level module [analysis] running analysis passes on this crate --
Regression in nightly-2022-06-08 found 7 bors merge commits in the specified range commit[0] 2022-06-06: Auto merge of - flip1995:clippyup, r=Manishearth commit[1] 2022-06-06: Auto merge of - matthiaskrgr:rollup-ajyvjd3, r=matthiaskrgr commit[2] 2022-06-07: Auto merge of - RalfJung:miri, r=RalfJung commit[3] 2022-06-07: Auto merge of - jackh726:remove-borrowck-mode, r=nikomatsakis commit[4] 2022-06-07: Auto merge of - scottmcm:add-coldcc, r=nagisa,lcnr commit[5] 2022-06-07: Auto merge of - Dylan-DPC:rollup-ya51k1k, r=Dylan-DPC commit[6] 2022-06-07: Auto merge of - Dylan-DPC:rollup-0ae3pwp, r=Dylan-DPC ERROR: no CI builds available between and within last 167 days
I guess? :thinking:
E.g. in we had to use weird code to check that the iterator is the same length as a slice. After changing the function to have an ExactSizeIterator bound, we should undo the hack <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --This issue has been assigned to via . <!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOT_END --
What do you mean by "many"? Is this about grepping returns in and replacing them with whenever possible? I'd like to give this a try but not sure what exactly this is asking.
Ah, not libstd, just in the compiler. But yea, you got the right idea, grep for it, see if it can be ExactSizeIterator, if not leave it
Hi, this looks pretty easy and I would actually try to get involved into rustc - could I take this one as starting point for incoming weekend?
Go for it. Just search for returns in the compiler source code and replace them with whenever possible.
claim
When I install the latest master toolchains via and try to build with them, linking fails: I did some bisection, and it looks like the problem started happening with Cc
The error is actually already mentioned in However, I am building Miri with cargo, so I don't know how I'd "use LLD instead".
Hm, we probably need to revert that PR. I did not realize we'd need lld downstream too, I thought that was only on our builder. cc
Yes, a revert seems appropriate. We're going to have to figure out where that's actually coming from. The only change I saw between 10 and 11 by grepping was the removal of llgo, but maybe there's some bad remnant.
Yeah, I thought this issue would be limited to the rustc build, but it makes sense that it can also affect project linking against rustc shared objects. I've looked a bit into what the root cause is, and what I have so far as that the symbol comes from and is present as a weak symbol both when compiling with clang-10 and clang-11. The only difference I see from is this: So apparently was treated as a symbol of the library, while now it's treated as a symbol of -- I'm not sure what that actually means, but presumably that refers to the compiler runtime libraries. My guess is that previously it just ended up being nulled out as a missing weak symbol, but now it's actually being found and linking fails because ... reasons. I'm not good at linkers :) Edit: shows these as:
can you prepare a revert PR?
Done in . If nobody has an idea on how to avoid the linker error, two more options would be to comment out the symbol in our llvm-project fork, or to avoid upgrading clang altogether and just build both Python 2 and Python 3 for that image.
The issue is probably going to be in how exactly the objects that comprise are compiled, not linked. I suspect just ends up ignoring the malformed object or otherwise not reporting the issue, but the object and the relevant symbols ultimately end up in the anyway. Alas, reasons these obscure failures can occur are many – I've seen them occur from things as trivial as forgetting to . The question is: is there perhaps a way to disable ExecutionEngine entirely? Intuitively nothing we do should depend on that code.
And if not, I'm comfortable patching out in our fork as we get closer to Feb 11 and continue having trouble pinpointing exact cause of this problem.
We normally don't link ExecutionEngine, but dist-x8664-linux in particular builds LLVM with ThinLTO, in which case we link as shared, instead of statically linking individual components into rustcllvm.
It seems to be possible to configure the components in using , but I'm not sure to what degree we can restrict those (not sure if this job also ships LLVM tools).
So, I think we could have used to exclude unnecessary parts from , as LLVM tools can still statically link the parts not in the dylib. But in the end, we can't use the option anyway due to
Looks like I'm getting this locally when trying to bootstrap rustc (while building ), might happen since the llvm upgrade but I'm not 100% sure. Are there some workarounds I can put into my for this? I'm using lld to link. <details<summaryBacktrace</summary<p</p</details
which commit are you trying to build?
latest git master
Probably best to open a new issue then; this one has been closed and the steps to reproduce it still work without error -- you might be having a different problem.
Opened
Did anyone file an upstream bug report about this? I'm observing it outside of Rust, but with a similar setup ( with lld+ThinLTO, then linking it into a binary with ). If not, I'd try to build a reproducer.
I've opened for this.
The bug has been fixed, the fix will be in LLVM 12.0.1.
Thanks! We can try updating clang again once the 12.0.1 tag is there.
I'm having trouble linking a Rust program to a non-position-independent C library. When I manually remove the flag from the ld step that rustc runs, everything works correctly. I think that should remove the flag for me, but it doesn't. Here's what I think is going on: When I run It runs ld with the flag: But when I read the rustc code , it seems like the intention is that should only be passed to ld when . That is, if we're not compiling a position independent executable, then we should not pass the position independent executable flag to ld. I think what may be happening here is that somehow the defaults from are overriding the command line options I'm setting. This happens with stable and also the nightly I tried:
and are two distinct things. is also unrelated to the option. Interestingly, I do not remember us having an option to disable PIE; we should have one.
I did a bit of reading and here's what I figured out, please correct me if any of this is wrong. Linkers are new to me! Rust builds position independent executables by default on platforms that support it. These platforms have a relocation model of pic in their target config. The is what sets that linker option, except if it's disallowed by . The correct solution to this is to add a codegen flag, or something like that. Does this sound right?
Hi, I am having the same issue. I am trying to link against non-position-independent C library, build process ends without error but results returned by Rust bindings are different (and incorrect) than those returned from clean C implementation. In order to overcome that issue currently I am setting RUSTFLAGS="-C relocation-model=dynamic-no-pic -C linker=./linker" where linker is bash script that wraps cc and filter -pie flags:
I'm also having this problem. I assumed that passing when doing a build would suppress on the linker command line. (cc:
I'm still seeing this issue. Not sure if it's a regression or I'm doing something wrong. I have a "hello world" program in , and when I run , the resulting call to includes . I'm using nightly rust on Ubuntu: .
So, the problem here isn't with rust, but with the linker.
In Ubuntu 15.10 and later the default GCC toolchain installed has been compiled with which causes and to be passed to during code generation and to during linking. Now, the linking part is what is important here as rust on most platforms uses as the linker for most targets. So, though no PIC or PIE code may have been generated by , the linker will still try to link as with PIE in mind, breaking when trying to compile with and the like. To work around this will need to see that the linker has been compiled with PIE as the default and pass to the linker if using GCC or something similar for other linkers. Code to do this can be seen in for Tarpaulin though it is only meant for Linux in that state and can be improved greatly if in tree. EDIT: Don't know why Github isn't linking cross-project PRs correctly right now.
Can this issue be resolved by always passing , except when compiling with ?
Sadly, no. In testing I have seen that any build of GCC that was not built with rejects the option and fails to run. This is why in the PR that I linked the linker was queried to see if it was compiled with before tacking on .
So it's came out from the discussion on an issue related to this in tarpaulin that passing -no-pie before -shared (and maybe then -static if it exists for static linkages as well) resolves the issue. I'm going to test this tarpaulin side and I can report back but I feel it would be best if this could be solved rustc side as it can affect any user in a similar situation.
gives a warning, but does not.
suggested that we test this out with crater to see if this would generate much substantial noise and how common it would be.
I'd expect it'd be a pretty substantial source of warnings, but that's exactly why I think we should introduce it. People compiling with are asking for these sorts of bugs to be caught, and we should serve them appropriately ;) In any case, running crater would require having an implementation to do a crater run on, so let's do it!
Let's do it. (I'd personally even like an attribute to allow people to opt-in to this for , for example, when T is itself . That way if I make a , I'll get a warning on that I normally wouldn't want but plausibly do now that I'm getting s in the s.)
I've opened a pull request to try this out:
We discussed this on the language team meeting; folks felt generally positive, but we'd like to do a crater run to see what the impact would be like and if there would be many false positives.
I tried this using but it does not seemed to complain when the part of is not used, is the the correct behavior? I hit this when doing where I didn't use part of the tuple which cause it to not work, which I did not know is required to be used.
putting it into a binding, even an unused one, is considered a use, like how doesn't lint. With just calling it lints: