jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
ignore_binding, ); <del> let no_ambiguity = self.ambiguity_errors.len() == prev_ambiguity_errors_len; </del> <ins> let no_ambiguity = ambiguity_errors_len(&self.ambiguity_errors) == prev_ambiguity_errors_len; </ins> import.vis.set(orig_vis); let module = match path_res { PathResult::Module(module) => {

Related discussion:
text: <!-- [31mICE[0m: Rustc '' 'error: internal compiler error: no resolution for an import', 'error: internal compiler error: no resolution for an import' File: --auto-reduced (treereduce-rust): &lt;details&lt;summary&lt;strongoriginal code&lt;/strong&lt;/summary&lt;poriginal: </p</detailsVersion 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: --<!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
regression in cc
I believe the root cause of this issue stems from the changes I made, so claim
Code change:
<del> #!/bin/bash # We use InnoSetup and its `iscc` program to also create combined installers. # Honestly at this point WIX above and `iscc` are just holdovers from # oh-so-long-ago and are required for creating installers on Windows. I think # one is MSI installers and one is EXE, but they're not used so frequently at # this point anyway so perhaps it's a wash! set -euo pipefail IFS=$'nt' source "$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/../shared.sh" if isWindows; then curl.exe -o is-install.exe "${MIRRORS_BASE}/2017-08-22-is.exe" cmd.exe //c "is-install.exe /VERYSILENT /SUPPRESSMSGBOXES /NORESTART /SP-" ciCommandAddPath "C:Program Files (x86)Inno Setup 5" fi </del>

Related discussion:
text: The .exe installer tries to install to "C:Program Files (x86)Rust", even though it's the 64-bit version. It then fails to create the destination directory due to a permission error. The .msi installer correctly defaults to "C:Program FilesRust <channel<version", and has no problems with permissions, I would expect the .exe installer to have the same behaviour.
Rust should install to , just like Ant, Python, and many others. is the place for developer tools that have a known folder. is badly named (compare to ), poorly suited for command line tools, and clutters the already hideous PATH more than .
/cc
Neither Ant nor Python install to C:tools by default, and searching I can't find any reference to C:tools even being a thing? Both Python and Ant install to C:Python<Versionand C:ant, which is incredibly annoying, so please don't do that!
I might be mistaken, but installing both through stuck them in for me. I'd recommend anyone with a machine running Vista or later use chocolatey. And there's a trend in chocolatey to have packages extract to when they aren't self-contained enough for .
For an OS without much filesystem hierarchy, is a decent place for developer and command-line packages, similar to on some unices. But I'd much rather see a that actually obeyed chocolatey's conventions and extracted an archive to , with no installer/registry involvement. But Rust only and installers for windows. : And all packages that do this reduce PATH clutter, since chocolatey symlinks their executables into .
The idea was to deprecate the .exe installer once .msi is known to be working satisfactory.
Can we have a zip release too, that contains Rust and Cargo like the others? Linux and OS X have an archive release. Those are preferred in chocolatey because they don't involve the registry or any other Windows components.
We do produce tarballs for windows.
Seems like we should probably just stop producing the .exe's. That fix would go in
I don't see a cargo+rustc nightly tarball for windows, although I do see ones for linux and osx.
triage: We do not link to the .exe installer anymore, but we still produce them.
Code change:
<del> #!/bin/bash # We use InnoSetup and its `iscc` program to also create combined installers. # Honestly at this point WIX above and `iscc` are just holdovers from # oh-so-long-ago and are required for creating installers on Windows. I think # one is MSI installers and one is EXE, but they're not used so frequently at # this point anyway so perhaps it's a wash! set -euo pipefail IFS=$'nt' source "$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)/../shared.sh" if isWindows; then curl.exe -o is-install.exe "${MIRRORS_BASE}/2017-08-22-is.exe" cmd.exe //c "is-install.exe /VERYSILENT /SUPPRESSMSGBOXES /NORESTART /SP-" ciCommandAddPath "C:Program Files (x86)Inno Setup 5" fi </del>

Related discussion:
text: I don't have access to windows at the moment to check if this bug has been resolved, but it's been a long time...
Grabbing the Windows download link from and swapping the for yields a functional link to the , which is nice. Testing on win7-x64, the MSI extracts with lessmsi, but the directory structure is somewhat unusual so there's no one-liner to get the Rust folder out. The best I came up with was: This yields a Rust install rooted at . However now that exists, multiple targets aren't really an issue anymore. Someone should make a Chocolatey package for
Can someone with access to Windows check what happens here today?
The latest version installs to instead, which works, but is a terrible default.
Triage: ! This seems... fine. I'm not sure if this should stay open or not; I'll let the relevant team (infra? compiler?) decide.
Code change:
<ins> // compile-flags: -Z mir-opt-level=3 -Z inline-mir // ignore-wasm32-bare compiled with panic=abort by default #![crate_type = "lib"] // EMIT_MIR issue_78442.bar.RevealAll.diff // EMIT_MIR issue_78442.bar.Inline.diff pub fn bar<P>( // Error won't happen if "bar" is not generic _baz: P, ) { hide_foo()(); } fn hide_foo() -> impl Fn() { // Error won't happen if "iterate" hasn't impl Trait or has generics foo } fn foo() { // Error won't happen if "foo" isn't used in "iterate" or has generics } </ins>

Related discussion:
text: Previously: Now: <!-- 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
Inlining exposes a use of unnormalized local in a call terminator (not sure if this is more of an issue with inlining or a validator): Note: revision annotation doesn't work in an auxiliary file (so it isn't tested on CI with mir-opt-level=2). modify labels: +A-mir-opt-inlining
This ICEs again because the fix was reverted Can someone reopen please?
Due to this new requires to trigger. <details<summaryICE:</summary</details
(FWIW can also trigger this: )
fixes this for and , but it still ICEs with on its own or with mir-opt-level 1/2 cc
Code change:
<ins> // compile-flags: -Zdrop-tracking-mir // edition:2021 use std::future::Future; trait Client { type Connecting<'a>: Future + Send where Self: 'a; fn connect(&'_ self) -> Self::Connecting<'a>; //~^ ERROR use of undeclared lifetime name `'a` } fn call_connect<C>(c: &'_ C) -> impl '_ + Future + Send where C: Client + Send + Sync, { async move { c.connect().await } //~^ ERROR `C` does not live long enough } fn main() {} </ins>

Related discussion:
text: <!-- 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
Another regression of cc
Before I create a fix: is an expected/reasonable value in this ? I.e. is the right fix here just to allow ?
I don't think so. Actually just looked, think it's because we're not erasing properly. Let me put up a quick fix.
Code change:
font-size: 1.25rem; } <ins> /* This class only exists for users who want to draw attention to a particular element in their documentation. */ .content .docblock .warning { border-left: 2px solid var(--warning-border-color); padding: 14px; position: relative; /* The "!important" part is required because the rule is otherwise overruled in this CSS selector: ".docblock > :not(.more-examples-toggle):not(.example-wrap)" */ overflow-x: visible !important; } .content .docblock .warning::before { color: var(--warning-border-color); content: "ⓘ"; position: absolute; left: -25px; top: 5px; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.25rem; } </ins> a.test-arrow { visibility: hidden; position: absolute;

Related discussion:
text: Following , we realized that rustdoc users would prefer to have a syntax extension rather than using plain HTML to have warning blocks. suggested the following: suggested: What do you think? cc
Personal Opinions: The first style will look fine for short forms, but I'm not sure for longer text. A possible syntax: Which to me pushes the text too far right. Not having any spacing, but just separating with newlines, seems hard to parse at a glance what is part of the WARNING, and prevents multiple line breaks inside the warning. Also, it's not as extensible. INFO can be , but if we ever want more extensions, they would increasingly possibly conflict with other things. The second style makes it immediately clear what is part of the block, and is unlikely to accidentally conflict if we ever want to add more block styles. It also supports multiple lines or inner blocks trivially. A final advantage is that it may support nested blocks, in case those ever come to be useful. Overall: I prefer the second form, both aesthetically and for future-proofing
I think I agree with in preferring the second form. I like the first form's simplicity, but it also seems surprising that is treated as a 'keyword' and will change the formatting of the docs.
That's why we have this debate. :stuckouttongue:
I personally actually prefer stabilizing a CSS class, I think we should do more of that, just because parsing can get annoying. But this is not that hard to parse anyway. The problem with is precisely that you can't scope it easily: what if you want to add code blocks? bullet points?
The problem with this is it ties rustdoc to the HTML backend; like I said nothing rustdoc currently does guarentees that it will generate HTML from the markdown. Changing that means that to make the JSON backend have the same info, we'd have to add a full HTML parser to rustdoc just to read the HTML in the markdown, because pulldown does not parse HTML for us. I really think we should avoid making the JSON backend a second-class citizen.
Also there's not much point to this if it's just a little CSS IMO, you can add that yourself with and it will look just as good and be more flexible since you can control the styles yourself.
Code change:
font-size: 1.25rem; } <ins> /* This class only exists for users who want to draw attention to a particular element in their documentation. */ .content .docblock .warning { border-left: 2px solid var(--warning-border-color); padding: 14px; position: relative; /* The "!important" part is required because the rule is otherwise overruled in this CSS selector: ".docblock > :not(.more-examples-toggle):not(.example-wrap)" */ overflow-x: visible !important; } .content .docblock .warning::before { color: var(--warning-border-color); content: "ⓘ"; position: absolute; left: -25px; top: 5px; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.25rem; } </ins> a.test-arrow { visibility: hidden; position: absolute;

Related discussion:
text: I'm not a giant fan of the syntax because it looks odd when rendered by anything other than rustdoc, which I'd rather avoid, one of the major design concerns for intra-doc links was compatibility with other markdown parsers:
So, I agree, but I'm not convinced that the warning class is something that needs to be surfaced in the JSON backend as anything special. Also, bear in mind, HTML is a part of markdown: valid HTML (well a subset of HTML) is valid markdown. Users already can , and they do that in many cases. Markdown parsers already need to be able to handle HTML. There's nothing new there. Whatever consumes the JSON backend will need to be able to handle that too. I mean, yes, in theory, in practice people don't do this because of the barrier to entry (you have to get your tools to use that, including )
Also, this is incorrect, pulldown absolutely parses HTML. It has to, like I said valid HTML is valid Markdown. It doesn't parse it thoroughly, I believe you can mess it up with sufficiently complex HTML, but it parses HTML. What this changes is subtler: up till now you did not need any particular stylesheet to acceptably render rustdoc markdown from the JSON backend on your own (just use your favorite markdown renderer's stylesheet), but now you will need other css classes to handle rendering warnings as warnings.
I do not agree that this is a problem. I've used Phabricator's implementation of this approach happily and it is by design that warning banners are one paragraph. It is not the intention that you would put entire sections of documentation into a warning banner. They are for a brief callout. It's fine to refer to a subsequent section of the documentation from the callout if needed. I suppose this is a matter of taste but it's one where I believe the opinionatedness of the syntax is a positive thing.
So I discussed this a bit with on the side, we agree that the effect on the JSON backend isn't major since HTML is already a subset of markdown and docs use HTML already (especially for images and tables). My position is as follows: I strictly prefer HTML over some other scoped syntax with nuances people have to learn. I don't think there's as much value in unscoped syntax which makes my position "HTML or nothing", basically.
Code change:
font-size: 1.25rem; } <ins> /* This class only exists for users who want to draw attention to a particular element in their documentation. */ .content .docblock .warning { border-left: 2px solid var(--warning-border-color); padding: 14px; position: relative; /* The "!important" part is required because the rule is otherwise overruled in this CSS selector: ".docblock > :not(.more-examples-toggle):not(.example-wrap)" */ overflow-x: visible !important; } .content .docblock .warning::before { color: var(--warning-border-color); content: "ⓘ"; position: absolute; left: -25px; top: 5px; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.25rem; } </ins> a.test-arrow { visibility: hidden; position: absolute;

Related discussion:
text: I'm not wholly against unscoped single-line syntax. We and syntax in W3C specs and you invariably need to add more stuff to it (there's an HTML class in these specs for this reason). Furthermore, Rust has a strong culture of wrapping text, so this means we need to work well while wrapped, and that means we're again introducing some form of scoping mechanism (e.g. indenting the text), which editors will have to learn, as well.
I don't know about admonitions specifically but there seems to be something of a community habit to use "magic tags" on fenced code blocks for this sort of features (e.g. github has a tag), maybe that could be an option? I don't know if pulldown_cmark has a hook for manipulating code blocks but… So a warning would be or maybe the tag would be to leave room for things like note/todo/danger/… Alternatively, take a gander at how other markdown implementations extend the language for this sort of features? e.g. seems to be using for admonitions.
Hmm, but is still for code, even if it has some extra behavior. Aside from the design concerns, this would be feasible to implement: we just extract the language string from the code block with pulldown.
Could you use something that's already built into markdown? For example, rustdoc could take and render it as an admonition.
That's what suggested: to use markdown and make some changes on rustdoc side. I think the codeblock approach is the best personally.
My bad, I didn't see that.
I wonder if it makes more sense to add this as a proc-macro. Rustdoc can still provide the CSS classes and things, and you could use them with HTML directly, but you could use or something and it would expand to the correct HTML tags and classes.
Might be better to have a then, no?
Is that going to be a special header similar to the "unsafe"/"experimental"/etc ones, or is that going to also be used within docs in an order-sensitive way? If the latter we should probably just use a CSS class; mixing and is ugly
Agreed.
Code change:
font-size: 1.25rem; } <ins> /* This class only exists for users who want to draw attention to a particular element in their documentation. */ .content .docblock .warning { border-left: 2px solid var(--warning-border-color); padding: 14px; position: relative; /* The "!important" part is required because the rule is otherwise overruled in this CSS selector: ".docblock > :not(.more-examples-toggle):not(.example-wrap)" */ overflow-x: visible !important; } .content .docblock .warning::before { color: var(--warning-border-color); content: "ⓘ"; position: absolute; left: -25px; top: 5px; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.25rem; } </ins> a.test-arrow { visibility: hidden; position: absolute;

Related discussion:
text: Among the suggested ideas, my favourite one remains the code block with "warning" as tag:
Yeah, but triple backticks is also for preformatted text without further markup, so you won't be able to e.g. use text formatting (or other code) in there
True... Finding the right syntax is much more complicated than expected...
That's the issue of using markdown, for all that it has a pretty nice baseline syntax it really was not designed for extensibility.
We can always use : it'd allow to have text formatting inside it.
I would use , it's not quite kosher to invent arbitrary HTML tags (though you can use Custom Elements, which is more heavyweight)
Sounds good to me. It's funny because we kinda came back to the . :rofl:
I just thought: we could use tag in the markdown and then transform it into in the generated HTML?
My main objection to all of these is that rustdoc shouldn't be adding custom markdown syntax that no one else supports. Any new syntax we use should look reasonable even if rendered with the default renderer.
Well, it remains valid markdown since it's HTML (even though it's custom tag). I'm completely fine with , but it might be simpler/better for users to simply write .
Coming back to this (because of ), it seems like the conversation kinda agreed on adding a CSS class directly and then it would look like this in the docs: . I'll send a PR in the next days and then we can open an FCP to see if everyone is ok with it (and if not, we'll have code to help the debate).
This indeed seems like a better solution than the HTML block. It also plays better with something said about not linking it too much too HTML. This will look like a proper warning or note, mostly independent of the HTML generation.
They also seemed to not be too favourable to anything that needs some extra parsing from rustdoc iuc. I'm fine with bot the github solution and the CSS class.
Maybe one more comment to make here. The note-taking app, which uses Markdown also has a similar syntax to create these blocks. It is called . It uses a syntax similar to the syntax that is used for doc intra-links currently, and it is fully compatible with them.
Code change:
font-size: 1.25rem; } <ins> /* This class only exists for users who want to draw attention to a particular element in their documentation. */ .content .docblock .warning { border-left: 2px solid var(--warning-border-color); padding: 14px; position: relative; /* The "!important" part is required because the rule is otherwise overruled in this CSS selector: ".docblock > :not(.more-examples-toggle):not(.example-wrap)" */ overflow-x: visible !important; } .content .docblock .warning::before { color: var(--warning-border-color); content: "ⓘ"; position: absolute; left: -25px; top: 5px; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.25rem; } </ins> a.test-arrow { visibility: hidden; position: absolute;

Related discussion:
text: I am uncertain if this is any better than what suggested from the GitHub syntax, but because of the similarity to the doc intra-link syntax. I do feel like this might be interesting because it should go well with backwards compatibility. However, this may look worse than the GitHub syntax solution when not going through cargo doc.
I thought I'd already left this comment, but I'd really like to avoid adding more markdown syntax where possible. This feature works fine without special syntax, I don't think we need it. edit: copying over the reasoning from the :
Although, I might not agree fully, I can fully appreciate and understand the reasoning you left in the corresponding PR. Still, I do think it might be worth to standardize some kind of syntax for some kind of warning block. This does not actually require customized markdown. Alternatively, I can suggest adding the GitHub flavor with emojis to the . This may help in standardizing short form warnings and notes within documentation. We could for example propose to standardize: which should look like the following I do value people's opinion on this. Is this a possible compromise?
That's a valid alternative, I think the yellow color is pretty important though, and it's useful for themes to be able to make styling decisions about warnings so I do think that having some way of marking it is important. I just don't think the way of marking it should be some magic invocation as opposed to CSS classes. (And I think that the bar for a feature that is adding new semantics to the Rustdoc markdown parser is much, much higher than that of one stabilizing a CSS class)
100% agree. I will look at the Rust API guidelines issue and possibly an RFC to rust to track the adoption in GitHub and possibly eventually merge. Thank you :smile:
Beyond all this discussion of third-party tools, I'd really like to make sure that whatever new syntax and presentation we add to rustdoc can also be to [mdBook]. That way, when the standard library starts using callouts, we can make sure the same style also gets used in The Book. Mostly, The Book seems to just use blockquotes, often with headings like [this one about ownership]. mdBook doesn't do anything special with it: it's [just a block quote with a header].