jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
def::DefVariant(_, variant_id, _) => { for field in fields { self.check_field(expr.span, variant_id, <del> NamedField(field.ident.node)); </del> <ins> NamedField(field.ident.node.name)); </ins> } } _ => self.tcx.sess.span_bug(expr.span,

Related discussion:
text: Tracking issue for: rust-lang/rfcs Functional record update does not mark the source as consumed, even if does not implement Copy. This means that e.g. the source's destructor will eventually be run, so the following code prints :
Note that, as discovered, you can also explicitly consume , also allowing code like:
:bomb:
Is legal, even if all members are private? It's a bit surprising
It is. There's the potentially-useful case where some of the members are private, and FRU allows you to update the public ones. Of course it should consume the source even then.
P-backcompat-lang, 1.0 beta
In my opinion the problem here is the privacy violation. The idea is that is expanded to and so forth. In this case, that does not trigger a move, because the types of those fields are . I think that part is acting as expected. What is surprising is that one can do this from outside the module.
That was (but my favored solution isn't minor).
When I initially saw this problem, I did not see it as a privacy violation, for the (obvious?) reason that since no private members of had been mentioned in the code , the client module is not breaking any abstraction introduced by privacy. I think this line of thinking is analogous to outline of the useful case where FRU allows one to update the public members of a type and silently move the private ones as well, via . This is useful for the case where the author of wants to reserve the right to add new private members to while still allowing for clients to use the convenient FRU syntax. I originally was going to try to explain my point of view via analogy with something from hygienic macros: If I were to define (and export) a macro within 's defining module: then it should, in principle, not be a privacy violation to use from client code outside 's defining module. (That is, in principle, hygiene should allow macros to expose controlled access to private internals.) Then I realized the crucial problem with that kind of analogy: is something that the designer of has to choose to put into the module; i.e., it is opt-in. But currently in Rust, FRU is not opt-in; its not even something you can opt out of.
Code change:
def::DefVariant(_, variant_id, _) => { for field in fields { self.check_field(expr.span, variant_id, <del> NamedField(field.ident.node)); </del> <ins> NamedField(field.ident.node.name)); </ins> } } _ => self.tcx.sess.span_bug(expr.span,

Related discussion:
text: Any struct automatically is given support for it, whether it be appropriate for that struct or not. And that seems wrong, at least given examples like the one provided here in . This latter point, that providing support for FRU should not be something that is silently attached to a type like , seems somewhat in line with the thinking given in . But I am also pretty sure we cannot adopt anything of the scope given in that draft. (Still, maybe there's a hint of solution embedded within, in the sense of having some way of marking a type as data vs abstract; see final two bullet points below.) So, as I see it, we can either: out a way to support the point-of-view outlined here in the description for , in that should somehow be treated as consuming . Such a change seems like it would be quite subtle, since we would need to have some way of expressing that code like is sound, even if the types of the fields and are consumed by their respective and methods. (In other words, need to consume , yet somehow not completely consume it. Maybe there's a way to think of it as consuming "whatever is left of the type", I do not know.) Advantages: This would address the bug as described by the issue author, and would not break any code that was not already broken. Drawbacks: It is not clear what the semantics are for this form (in other words: the phrase "would not break any code" above is only true if you first accept that this hypothesized semantics exists). Also, there may not be time to do this properly for 1.0. , try to adopt a data/abstract-type distinction along the lines of the one in draft RFC. (I'm not going to write Advantages/Drawbacks for this; I think we clearly do not have time to do it that way for 1.0) , change FRU into a non-hygienic expansion into the record construction form with all fields listed, in the sense that is synonymous with and subject to privacy checks. Advantages: Seems really simple to implement, and is consistent with at least one core team member's mental model of FRU. Drawbacks: If we did this, then code like the example above would break.
Code change:
def::DefVariant(_, variant_id, _) => { for field in fields { self.check_field(expr.span, variant_id, <del> NamedField(field.ident.node)); </del> <ins> NamedField(field.ident.node.name)); </ins> } } _ => self.tcx.sess.span_bug(expr.span,

Related discussion:
text: , let FRU keep its current hygienic (aka "privacy violating") semantics, but also make FRU something one must opt-in to support on a type. E.g. make a builtin trait that a struct must implement in order to be usable with FRU. (Or maybe its an attribute you attach to the item.) Advantages: Also seems really simple to implement (in the language). Accommodates users of FRU for the example. Drawbacks: If we did this, it would impose a burden on all code today that makes use of FRU, since they would have to start implementing . Thus, not simple to implement for the libraries and the overall ecosystem. , a hybrid between the previous two bullet-points: By default, treat FRU as non-hygienic expansion, but add a builtin trait that one can opt-into to get the hygienic (aka "privacy violating") semantics. As a bonus, perhaps implementing on a struct would also imply implementing on that struct, which seems like it would basically give us something very similar to the semantics desired by (Or, again, maybe its an attribute you attach to the item. This detail does not particularly matter to me.) Advantage: While this is obviously more complicated than the previous two bullet-points, it has the advantage that it has a staged landing strategy: We could just_ implement the change to FRU to be non-hygienic expansion for 1.0 beta. We could add at an arbitrary point in the future; it would not have to be in the 1.0 release. Drawback: People have claimed that some of my past proposals were a bit ... baroque. I imagine this one is no exception. :) (In other words, this semantics is a little complicated to explain to a newcomer.)
I don't want to make a big fuss about it, but I do want to note, again, that our "deadlines" are entirely self-imposed, and that under these circumstances "we don't have time" is slightly odd, because we can make time, any time we want. The blanket refusal to even contemplate doing that - even in light of new information - and to weigh the tradeoffs on their own merits is something I still don't really understand.
Code change:
def::DefVariant(_, variant_id, _) => { for field in fields { self.check_field(expr.span, variant_id, <del> NamedField(field.ident.node)); </del> <ins> NamedField(field.ident.node.name)); </ins> } } _ => self.tcx.sess.span_bug(expr.span,

Related discussion:
text: That out of the way, an additional possibility, let's call it 6., for list: We could just make the "abstract type" vs. "data type" distinction based on "does or doesn't the type have a private field". This doesn't entirely fill me with satisfaction (as with "worse is better" solutions in general), with specific drawbacks being that it doesn't extend cleanly to the nullary case (no fields at all), and that in terms of UX a change of semantics based on the presence or absence of a private field may be unexpected, but on the plus side, it's simpler, and would, I think, work.
Sure, hypothetical show-stopper issues could cause us to revisit our self-imposed schedule. I personally don't think that this issue, on its own at least, provides sufficient motivation for schedule revision. I admit that your draft RFC seems like it addresses a host of issues, so maybe all of them taken in unison would be a different story. (But then again, that's not even my call to make.)
There were a couple more options that I should have put on the list, for completeness, but overlooked. 6 note, the "has any private fields ==abstract-type; all public fields ==data-type", is one of them. This would (probably) be less work than adopting the draft RFC in full, but I am not sure what the other Advantages/Disadvantages are. I invite others to write an Advantages/Drawbacks for this approach (perhaps in an RFC PR). 7 We could add a way for a struct to opt-out of FRU support entirely. So in this approach, one would attach the appropriate attribute to , , etc. Advantages: won't break any existing code Drawbacks: Seems quite fragile; we may be good about auditing our own stdlib, but clients who are not aware of the attribute may inadvertently expose themselves to the same bug that currently plagues .
Also, I just wanted to mention: when I wrote my comment 6 hours ago, I came to the keyboard thinking that the FRU support for adding new private fields to and having still work was an important use case. But after some reflection in the hours since, supporting that use case does not seem as important to me.
Code change:
def::DefVariant(_, variant_id, _) => { for field in fields { self.check_field(expr.span, variant_id, <del> NamedField(field.ident.node)); </del> <ins> NamedField(field.ident.node.name)); </ins> } } _ => self.tcx.sess.span_bug(expr.span,

Related discussion:
text: Here is why: It is relatively easy for a developer who wants to provide that sort of extensible abstraction can still do it, by factoring the type into a all-public front-end with a single public field that holds the all-private back-end, like so: So, given that there exists a reasonable pattern to bring back usable FRU even under the option "(3.) change FRU into a non-hygienic expansion into the record construction form with all fields listed, in the sense that is synonymous with and subject to privacy checks.", I would not object to us adopting (3.) aka solution.
I think that "has any private field" is a decent way to handle abstractness (you can always add a private unit field). On the other hand, Rust supports trait bounds of types – these should handle roles just fine – you shouldn't be able to coerce past a trait bound. By the way, this is somewhat subtle, because coercing to is wrong (as it leaks memory – it coerces past the implicit bound), but coercing to is fine (as the bound isn't used by ). However, this isn't a property of – you still can't coerce to – so we probably want a relatively-sophisticated way to occasionally ignore roles.
I mean, Rust already has a mechanism for ensuring representation-abstraction – private fields – which are semantic (they are handled after type-checking, we probably want to handle them during it, but they definitely aren't handled syntactically or during resolution). It is just that FRU currently accesses them improperly. Also, it doesn't have much to do with e.g. roles – is an abstract type, but it doesn't use any bound on . only uses the implicit bound. A for data-only types would be nice, through.
Another alternative came to me while I was drafting an RFC about this. (But its an alternative that I do not particularly like.) 8a Instead of making "has any private fields" the thing that makes FRU unavailable, instead make the rule be "has all private fields." Thus types like and will not be subject to the vulnerability outlined here. Adding a single field to an otherwise private struct is what changes the nature of a struct with respect to abstraction and FRU, rather than adding a single non- field to an otherwise public struct.
Code change:
def::DefVariant(_, variant_id, _) => { for field in fields { self.check_field(expr.span, variant_id, <del> NamedField(field.ident.node)); </del> <ins> NamedField(field.ident.node.name)); </ins> } } _ => self.tcx.sess.span_bug(expr.span,

Related discussion:
text: 8b, which is so similar to 8a that I gave them both the same numeral: Outlaw the trivial FRU form . That is, to use FRU, you have to use at least one field in the constructing expression. Again, this implies that types like and will not be subject to the vulnerability outlined here. (This may be a decent change to make to the language regardless of whatever else happens on this ticket; the only argument in favor of keeping support for such a trivial form is maybe for supporting certain macro-expansions. But fully-general macro-authors already have to tread very carefully around corner cases on structs, due to issues like the empty braces problem (see )
That would leave the vulnerability intact in the case where the type has both public fields and private fields, the fact that no such type currently exists in the standard library notwithstanding (just as a very artificial demonstration, consider a with ).
yep. Library authors would have to factor their structures very carefully. (I described the drawback you mention in the RFC I posted shortly after you wrote your comment, though I did not include the detail of having the private fields be , which does seem like it could make the situation all the more subtle. Not insurmountable, but a definite drawback.) Just to be clear, I'm not saying I prefer (8a) or (8b); I'm just trying to be complete in my exploration of the solution space.
Repurposed as the tracking issue for rust-lang/rfcs
I'll just go snag
Code change:
self.opts.debugging_opts.print_enum_sizes } pub fn nonzeroing_move_hints(&self) -> bool { <del> !self.opts.debugging_opts.disable_nonzeroing_move_hints </del> <ins> self.opts.debugging_opts.enable_nonzeroing_move_hints </ins> } pub fn sysroot<'a>(&'a self) -> &'a Path { match self.opts.maybe_sysroot {

Related discussion:
text: It looks like that when a local variable is initialized in a loop and dropped in the same loop, the stack local drop flag for that local isn't reinitialized to "not dropped" when the loop runs after the first time. Concretely, this test passes on stable and fails on nightly right now: cc
Interestingly this slight variation on the above code does drop twice as expected:
Code change:
format!("*{}", code) }; return Some(( <del> sp, </del> <ins> expr.span, </ins> message, suggestion, Applicability::MachineApplicable,

Related discussion:
text: <!-- Thank you for filing a bug report! Please provide a short summary of the bug, along with any information you feel relevant to replicating the bug. --I tried this code: I expected to see this happen: I expected that the help text would give syntactically correct code, or that there would be no help text. Instead, this happened: The provided code snippet is not valid - it tries to deference the else-block, which is impossible. Better would be to put the inside the else-block. <!-- 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. --: Also occurs on stable, 1.50.0. <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
claim I have a fix for this bug + an improvement. Gotta got for now but will submit the PR later today.
Code change:
// Encode the command and arguments in a command line string such // that the spawned process may recover them using CommandLineToArgvW. let mut cmd: Vec<u16> = Vec::new(); <ins> // CreateFileW has special handling for .bat and .cmd files, which means we // need to add an extra pair of quotes surrounding the whole command line // so they are properly passed on to the script. // See issue #91991. let is_batch_file = Path::new(prog) .extension() .map(|ext| ext.eq_ignore_ascii_case("cmd") || ext.eq_ignore_ascii_case("bat")) .unwrap_or(false); if is_batch_file { cmd.push(b'"' as u16); } </ins> // Always quote the program name so CreateProcess doesn't interpret args as // part of the name if the binary wasn't found first time. append_arg(&mut cmd, prog, Quote::Always)?;

Related discussion:
text: I tried this code: I expected to see this happen: Instead, this happened: This is caused by different quote handling. The first (correct) command line for the spawned process (as observed by ) is: The broken one is: The command for must be in additional set of quotes, as the first and last one are stripped. It works when there are no spaces in the arguments due to the exception rule, see Stable. It worked up until nightly-2021-11-20 nightly-2021-11-21 modify labels: +regression-from-stable-to-nightly -regression-untriaged
This is caused by Rust now handling finding the exe to run itself (for security reasons). The fix here would be. as you say, to detect or extensions and add the extra quotes. The underlying function call here is . As the documentation says, this can only be used to run files. However, an undocumented feature of is that it will do this for us if given a or file. Previously we used to leave the argument blank and let it guess the right application from the argument. So apparently it would fill in for the application name and add plus the extra quotes to . But now that we do fill in the ourselves, it will still change to and add to but evidentially doesn't add the extra quotes. Thus we need to do this ourselves.
That seems reasonable; could you or someone on the Windows team submit a PR adding the requisite quoting (since quoting is hard to get right)?
Oops, sorry! I had a PR lined up but forgot to submit.
Code change:
<ins> // revisions: explicit implicit //[implicit] check-pass #![forbid(coherence_leak_check)] #![feature(negative_impls, with_negative_coherence)] pub trait Marker {} #[cfg(implicit)] impl<T: ?Sized> !Marker for &T {} #[cfg(explicit)] impl<'a, T: ?Sized + 'a> !Marker for &'a T {} trait FnMarker {} // Unifying these two impls below results in a `T: '!0` obligation // that we shouldn't need to care about. Ideally, we'd treat that // as an assumption when proving `&'!0 T: Marker`... impl<T: ?Sized + Marker> FnMarker for fn(T) {} impl<T: ?Sized> FnMarker for fn(&T) {} //[explicit]~^ ERROR conflicting implementations of trait `FnMarker` for type `fn(&_)` //[explicit]~| WARN this was previously accepted by the compiler but is being phased out; it will become a hard error in a future release! fn main() {} </ins>

Related discussion:
text: <!-- Thank you for filing a bug report! Please provide a short summary of the bug, along with any information you feel relevant to replicating the bug. -- I expected to see this happen: Compiles successfully Instead, this happened: <!-- 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. --: label A-coherence F-negative_impls requires-nightly T-compiler
I'll look into it
Code change:
// on the GAT itself. for (region_b, region_b_idx) in &regions { // Again, skip `'static` because it outlives everything. Also, we trivially <del> // know that a region outlives itself. if ty::ReStatic == **region_b || region_a == region_b { </del> <ins> // know that a region outlives itself. Also ignore `ReError`, to avoid // knock-down errors. if matches!(**region_b, ty::ReStatic | ty::ReError(_)) || region_a == region_b { </ins> continue; } if region_known_to_outlive(

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
Code change:
35 |     #[unstable = "1200"] impl S { } |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <del> error: aborting due to 9 previous errors </del> <ins> error: aborting due to 8 previous errors </ins>

Related discussion:
text: Minimal example: Error message (ran in playground): Tested on nightly as well ()
Related:
twice without checking the return value. Modify it to return and check where it is being called ether both calls have returned an (cancel one, emit the other, return ), wether only one was created (emit it, return ) or none has (return ).
I'll fix this, thanks for the instruction!
I would happily have a go at this, if that's ok with
Sure go for it!
have you had time to work on this? If not could I give it a go? :)
I totally thought I was going to have time, but I had a crazy week at work this week. Go ahead and give it a go :) I'll find another bug to work on when I definitely have time
It looks like the PR to fix this was merged but has a few dangling threads. There seems to be some confusion about short-circuiting functionality and the necessity of the patch and also the error count still reads 2 rather than 1. Should a new issue be opened with those issues and this issue closed?
Code change:
"byteorder", "cargo_metadata 0.9.1", "colored", <del> "compiletest_rs", </del> <ins> "compiletest_rs 0.4.0", </ins> "directories", "env_logger 0.7.1", "getrandom",

Related discussion:
text: Hello, this is your friendly neighborhood mergebot. After merging PR rust-lang/rust, I observed that the tool clippy-driver no longer builds. A follow-up PR to the repository is needed to fix the fallout. cc do you think you would have time to do the follow-up work? If so, that would be great! And nominating for compiler team prioritization.
Code change:
let break_x = self.with_loop_scope(loop_node_id, move |this| { let expr_break = hir::ExprKind::Break(this.lower_loop_destination(None), Some(x_expr)); <del> this.arena.alloc(this.expr(span, expr_break, ThinVec::new())) </del> <ins> this.arena.alloc(this.expr(gen_future_span, expr_break, ThinVec::new())) </ins> }); self.arm(ready_pat, break_x) };

Related discussion:
text: This code: produces: Which is invalid. Looks like the span of the desugaring of uses only the part, instead of the span of the entire expression. This results in invalid suggestions when used by the code in .
I'm not entirely sure if this means that desugaring should use a bigger span, or if the suggestion diagnostic needs to be interpreted differently.
hmm.. is the only case where the desugared expr's span doesn't cover the whole piece of code it comes from? That doesn't sound right. If wonder if the expr should have the bigger span by default, and then async-specific code could grab the tighter span for diagnostics that need to point at the operator.
Some of the desugaring only uses the span, but the parts relevant for diagnostics like this do use the full span. Not sure if there's a problem there too.
I thought I might have accidentally introduced this bug in , but right after that PR was merged, the output was correct: So something changed in the last two months in what spans are used for await desugarings, it seems.
actually I think it was introduced in in , cc Do you need someone to fix this? I'm happy to put up a quick PR.
Yeah, looks like it: I just finished bisecting, which pointed at a rollup involving .
this was introduced in the PR linked earlier to try and improve other errors. It is tricky because reducing the span to only incurs these kind of bugs. On the other hand, the errors that got improved there became much less noisy, so I wouldn't want to revert the whole change. My fix above will solve this issue, but I'm sure there will be others in the future :-/