jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
err.multipart_suggestion_verbose(descr, suggestion, Applicability::MaybeIncorrect); err } <ins> Res::Def(DefKind::Variant, _) if expr.is_none() => { err.span_label(span, format!("not a {expected}")); let fields = &tcx.expect_variant_res(res).fields.raw; let span = qpath.span().shrink_to_hi().to(span.shrink_to_hi()); let (msg, sugg) = if fields.is_empty() { ("use the struct variant pattern syntax".to_string(), " {}".to_string()) } else { let msg = format!( "the struct variant's field{s} {are} being ignored", s = pluralize!(fields.len()), are = pluralize!("is", fields.len()) ); let fields = fields .iter() .map(|field| format!("{}: _", field.name.to_ident_string())) .collect::<Vec<_>>() .join(", "); let sugg = format!(" {{ {} }}", fields); (msg, sugg) }; err.span_suggestion_verbose( qpath.span().shrink_to_hi().to(span.shrink_to_hi()), msg, sugg, Applicability::HasPlaceholders, ); err } </ins> _ => err.with_span_label(span, format!("not a {expected}")), } .emit()

Related discussion:
text: 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
Code change:
LL - fn f3<X: ?Sized>(x1: Box<X>, x2: Box<X>, x3: Box<X>) { LL + fn f3<X>(x1: Box<X>, x2: Box<X>, x3: Box<X>) { | <ins> help: consider borrowing here | LL |     let y: &X = *x1; |            + </ins> error[E0277]: the size for values of type `X` cannot be known at compilation time --> $DIR/unsized6.rs:24:9

Related discussion:
text: I tried compiling this code: which resulted in the following output of rustc: So the compiler says So I tried adding a borrow and recompiling the code: which resulted in: so the compiler says and so I'm stuck in a loop. The compiler can't decide whether I should borrow or not. As a newbie to Rust, this is very frustrating and the opposite of helpful, it just confuses me further. Please fix this indecisiveness :) :
For reference, what you likely want to do is one of the following which means they cannot be the type of a local binding. You can give a binding a slice type (), because that's morally equivalent to a pointer (with sizing info), which has a compile time determined size, as all borrows are .
Current output: After :
Code change:
if c.pgp { pgp::init(c.root); <ins> } else { warn("command "gpg" is not found"); warn("you have to install "gpg" from source " + " or package manager to get it to work correctly"); </ins> } c

Related discussion:
text: cargo is relying on the to find rustc, but if one runs cargo with , cargo will error out with the unhelpful: cargo should detect this and return a proper error message for this. A proper workaround for this is to make sure that has an absolute path to the binaries set, as in: It needs to be absolute because cargo does a chdir to the build directory, which would break a relative path.
We have a function, that cargo can use to determine the path to itself, then use to launch the corresponding rustc.
Code change:
if c.pgp { pgp::init(c.root); <ins> } else { warn("command "gpg" is not found"); warn("you have to install "gpg" from source " + " or package manager to get it to work correctly"); </ins> } c

Related discussion:
text: Instead of just saying the key can't be verified, explain why.
Yeah, it should also not fail! Missing gpg is a warning condition, not an error condition.
Code change:
<ins> error[E0425]: cannot find function `foo1` in crate `similar_unstable_method` --> $DIR/issue-109177.rs:7:30 | LL |     similar_unstable_method::foo1(); |                              ^^^^ help: a function with a similar name exists: `foo` | ::: $DIR/auxiliary/similar-unstable-method.rs:5:1 | LL | pub fn foo() {} | ------------ similarly named function `foo` defined here error[E0599]: no method named `foo1` found for struct `Foo` in the current scope --> $DIR/issue-109177.rs:11:9 | LL |     foo.foo1(); |         ^^^^ method not found in `Foo` error: aborting due to 2 previous errors Some errors have detailed explanations: E0425, E0599. For more information about an error, try `rustc --explain E0425`. </ins>

Related discussion:
text: It would be more helpful to suggest the method for the typo rather than a nightly-only symbol which isn't actually available. the suggestion doesn't work. method is actually available on a . method has been stable since 1.0.0. had trouble noticing the difference between and and could have used the compiler's help. No response Reproduced with 1.68.0 stable and 1.70 nightly. <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
cc
claim
Code change:
n => { let m = cmp::min(n, self.steals); self.steals -= m; <del> self.cnt.fetch_add(n - m, atomics::SeqCst); </del> <ins> self.bump(n - m); </ins> } } assert!(self.steals >= 0); } <ins> self.steals += 1; </ins> match data { Data(t) => Ok(t), GoUp(up) => Err(Upgraded(up)),

Related discussion:
text: PRs are bouncing due to test timeouts. Nothing has landed since cc
Very, very unfortunately, just landed. This means that the breakage is not unconditional.
Segfault!
had also been reporting segfaults on master.
I got a segfault on
What is causing this?
Weird, seemed to make it through.
This appears to be because of a channel deadlock. Investigating now.
Fixed the deadlock, investigating the segfault now.
Code change:
impl Foo for SignedBar { const BAR: i32 = -1; <del> //~^ ERROR E0326 </del> <ins> //~^ ERROR implemented const `BAR` has an incompatible type for trait //~| expected u32, //~| found i32 [E0326] </ins> } fn main() {}

Related discussion:
text: The multi-line errors should be extended to include this testcase. missed this because the didn't go through . I tried but that didn't work either. If someone can point me to to where to catch it, I can probably fix this too. cc Code: Error: Change to:
Code change:
}; fn a_test() {} #[rustc_main] <ins> #[no_coverage] </ins> pub fn main() -> () { extern crate test; test::test_main_static(&[&a_test, &m_test, &z_test])

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. --Take this simple crate: If I try to gather code coverage for , I end up with the first line mysteriously duplicated as a covered region: (I'm using for convenience, but the same thing happens when I use and process the coverage data manually with and .) Note that in the report produced by , the first line of the file appears twice. It is marked as having executed once, even though it is a comment. Instead, the line should only appear once, and its execution count (if any) should be the execution count of the actual code on that line. <!-- 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<summaryBacktrace</summary<p</p</details--
I did some initial investigation, and discovered a few things: The coverage mapping that embeds in the test binary contains entries for two different functions named . One is the actual that appears in the file, and the other is the that is injected by the test harness. The mapping for the injected function spans from (1,0) to (1,1). Coverage mapping regions use 1-based line numbers and column numbers, so a column number of 0 should be impossible. This unexpected column number confuses the processing code in , and results in line 1 being duplicated in the output. : There are special circumstances where it's legal for a region to have 0 for its start column and its end column, but that isn't what's happening here.
The origin of the bogus (1,0) to (1,1) region seems to be: The test harness entry point is created with a dummy span: When that dummy span is converted into a region, its 0-based start is decremented in an attempt to make the region non-empty. This decrement overflows to , and a subsequent increment (to make it 1-based) overflows back to 0.
My first thought was to sidestep the whole issue by adding to the test harness's injected .
Code change:
}; fn a_test() {} #[rustc_main] <ins> #[no_coverage] </ins> pub fn main() -> () { extern crate test; test::test_main_static(&[&a_test, &m_test, &z_test])

Related discussion:
text: However, I couldn’t get that to work, because is unstable and can't necessarily be used by the crate it is being injected into. So I think the fix will involve having the instrumentor detect and skip code with dummy spans.
label +A-code-coverage
fixes the overflow, which gets rid of the duplicate line. However, the instrumentor still ends up emitting an empty region from (1,1) to (1,1) for the test harness's , so I'd still like to find a way to avoid instrumenting that function.
I think the empty region now confusing the reporter in more subtle ways, because now I see weird stuff like this: It makes sense that line 1 is “covered” (via the injected ), but it's strange that lines 2 and 3 also have non-zero counts.
It looks like does have special handling for empty regions, but it doesn't properly anticipate the first region being empty, and ends up in a slightly confused state.
Code change:
variant_index: VariantIdx, dest: PlaceTy<'tcx, M::PointerTag>, ) -> InterpResult<'tcx> { <del> let variant_scalar = Scalar::from_u32(variant_index.as_u32()).into(); </del> <ins> // Layout computation excludes uninhabited variants from consideration // therefore there's no way to represent those variants in the given layout. if dest.layout.for_variant(self, variant_index).abi.is_uninhabited() { throw_ub!(Unreachable); } </ins> match dest.layout.variants { layout::Variants::Single { index } => { <del> if index != variant_index { throw_ub!(InvalidDiscriminant(variant_scalar)); } </del> <ins> assert_eq!(index, variant_index); </ins> } layout::Variants::Multiple { discr_kind: layout::DiscriminantKind::Tag,

Related discussion:
text: I'm trying to build my crate on nightly, and I'm getting a compiler panic. I bisected several nightly builds to try and narrow down when the problem started. The last known good nightly was , and the first failing was The panic also occurs in . The crates causing the panic are available here:
cc
triage: P-high, removing nomination label.
Minimal repro:
As some info, I've narrowed down the offending commit to –– most likely the changes in .
Code change:
/// expression of type `&'static str` which represents all of the literals /// concatenated left-to-right. /// <del> /// Integer and floating point literals are stringified in order to be </del> <ins> /// Integer and floating point literals are [stringified](core::stringify) in order to be </ins> /// concatenated. /// /// # Examples

Related discussion:
text: I was sent here from the . Please advise if I am posting in the wrong area. format! macro documentation could be improved by changing one of the examples to be more obvious to new users. Change the example to Additionally, assert! could be used to demonstrate final string values: <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
Something like ? claim
I think the use of "val" certainly makes it more obvious than my suggestion to use "z". Your suggestion would also do it in one line... I guess the question is whether you would prefer to make it more obvious (readable) by splitting it into two lines. This is my first contribution to Rust in any form, so I'm happy to go with your suggestion.
Thanks all!
Code change:
add_lint_group!(sess, "rust_2018_idioms", BARE_TRAIT_OBJECT, <del> UNREACHABLE_PUB); </del> <ins> UNREACHABLE_PUB, UNNECESSARY_EXTERN_CRATE); </ins> // Guidelines for creating a future incompatibility lint: //

Related discussion:
text: We need to add an epoch lint for It will lint , suggesting removal in root mods, and replacement with in non-root mods. This is blocked on the ability to elide extern crate in the first place.
It is also blocked on a feature to force linkage of a crate, see this comment and the discussion afterwards:
cc
I think the lint should be by default off in cases with , such as: This is because of the ergonomics problems with macros and the new macro import system, expressed here: It's bewildering for the migrating users if a lint tells them not to use the syntax, but then finding out that many of the macros out there have downright bad ergonomics with the import syntax. (For clarification: I think this is an undesirable state of affairs, and we should be linting against all , but if we do that, the ergonomics problem with the macro import should be fixed somehow.)
I don't think we want at all, really. If we want to import macros, we should have another means of doing it. Otherwise we have an inconsistency. So yes, I think I agree with your last paragraph above all,
I've discussed this a bit in the tracking issue for the macros import system:
Thanks, you expressed the exact concern I had in a concise way.
Another thing this needs to lint is unlisted crates that are included in that clash with existing modules. I'm not quite sure on what the story needs to be here cc
Does it? I've thought one of the things the path clarity RFC was about was to have separate namespaces for top level modules and extern crates.
The current plan has changed a bit so I'm not sure if that is still true. (If stuff does change it will probably be RFCd again, there's a bit of experimentation going on)
Sigh I hope we won't discuss all of this crap all over again... I don't enjoy that but it is not me who wants to change things.
I've hidden your last comment, which I found hostile and unconstructive.
IDK what has been hearing, but for me, this is the latest state of consensus on that issue, and it seems to have separate namespaces: is that the case? You seem unresponsive on IRC that's why I'm using github.
That's mostly the latest state of consensus, yeah. Some tweaks have been made iirc. Everything has been implemented.
Code change:
//~^ ERROR generic associated types are unstable type Pointer2<T>: Deref<Target = T> where T: Clone, U: Clone; //~^ ERROR generic associated types are unstable <ins> //~| ERROR where clauses on associated types are unstable </ins> } struct Foo;

Related discussion:
text: clauses on associated types don't work yet so should be feature gated, presumably with . cc . Happens on versions = 1.24
Code change:
} } <del> if dont_insert_main || already_has_main { </del> <ins> // FIXME: This code cannot yet handle no_std test cases yet if dont_insert_main || already_has_main || prog.contains("![no_std]") { </ins> prog.push_str(everything_else); } else { <del> prog.push_str("fn main() {n"); </del> <ins> let returns_result = everything_else.trim_end().ends_with("(())"); let (main_pre, main_post) = if returns_result { ("fn main() { fn _inner() -> Result<(), impl core::fmt::Debug> {", "}n_inner().unwrap() }") } else { ("fn main() {n", "n}") }; prog.extend([main_pre, everything_else, main_post].iter().cloned()); </ins> line_offset += 1; <del> prog.push_str(everything_else); prog.push_str("n}"); </del> } debug!("final doctest:n{}", prog);

Related discussion:
text: Rustdoc now allows us to use in our tests. Unfortunately, this requires writing the manually, which really shouldn't be needed IMHO. So we now have to write: rust ///# fn main() -Result<(), (){ /// let foo = Ok(1usize); /// assert!(foo? 0); ///# } /// where it should suffice to write: rust /// let foo = Ok(1usize); /// assert!(foo? 0); /// Doing so will make the tests shorter and hopefully lead to more and less in tests.
Feels like a no-brainer to me; would be great. :)
I think there are two things we want before doing this: , so that it can always be , and existing code will just work. The re-do, so we can make a type that accepts any error type (since it'll just error anyway).
?
Yes, that's what I'm thinking, and I'm setting up a PR for that. However, it's still unstable.
I talked about this back in March on the " in main" tracking issue: That sample you gave isn't even valid as-is, unless coercing to is also in the pipeline?
That'll be next, hopefully. I wonder if it suffices to or if we need to keep a generic error type (which might mess with type inference). In any event, having both the aforementioned and should be a no-brainer, right?
Code change:
fn raw_proc_macro(&self, id: DefIndex) -> &ProcMacro { // DefIndex's in root.proc_macro_data have a one-to-one correspondence <del> // with items in 'raw_proc_macros' </del> <ins> // with items in 'raw_proc_macros'. // NOTE: If you update the order of macros in 'proc_macro_data' for any reason, // you must also update src/libsyntax_ext/proc_macro_harness.rs // Failing to do so will result in incorrect data being associated // with proc macros when deserialized. </ins> let pos = self.root.proc_macro_data.unwrap().decode(self).position(|i| i == id).unwrap(); &self.raw_proc_macros.unwrap()[pos] }

Related discussion:
text: The PR improved the situation about documenting proc macros. Thanks for that! However, I noticed a bug with it. I'm using . Running results in this: ! Looks like a simple typo or off-by-one or something like that bug. When using only and not s, everything looks good to me. CC
Oh, and also, running prints: Not sure if this warning is expected there. And not sure if related to this bug.
This is a consequence of the fact that has not yet been merged. Once it gets merged, and rust updates its Cargo submodule, this issue should go away.
It turns out that this issue was unrelated. I've opened a PR to fix it.
I see. Thanks for your work on this :)
Code change:
| LL |         Enum::Foo(a, b) => {} |         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not a tuple struct or tuple variant <ins> | help: the struct variant's fields are being ignored | LL |         Enum::Foo { a: _, b: _ } => {} |                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ </ins> error[E0769]: tuple variant `Enum::Bar` written as struct variant --> $DIR/recover-from-bad-variant.rs:12:9

Related discussion:
text: 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
Code change:
font-size: 19px; } <ins> ul.item-list > li > .out-of-band { font-size: 19px; } </ins> h4 > code, h3 > code, .invisible > code { position: inherit; }

Related discussion:
text: It should work a bit like IDE's feature that finds everything that implements a given interface.
This should be a fairly small change (the most annoying part has already been done) so i'll open this up as a mentored issue. The bit that writes out the "Implementors" section is in . This is where the known implementors for a given trait are pulled out of the global context and listed out onto the rendered page. The bit that's responsible for creating links is , implemented on a local type. This kind of Item is easily made from the kind of Item that's otherwise worked on in , but there's a catch: The entries in the Implementors list aren't s. They're s, which are only a subset of the things you get on an Item. This is the "most annoying part" i mentioned earlier. Fortunately, i ran into this when creating the "Implementations on Foreign Types" section, so if you scroll up a little in , you can see so i could render the full impl block for them. The task for anyone who wants to take this on is to pull that up a little so that it's used for all the implementors, not just the foreign ones. With a in hand, combine it with the Context to create a and call to generate the link. ( This also helpfully includes the extra HTML bits that will flush the link to the right edge, which is really the final step.) And... that's it! The link should probably go between the and the where clause underneath it, so that it's aligned with the impl line and not the where clause. You may need to also close/open the that's wrapping the whole line to make sure the link itself isn't monospace. If you have any questions, let me know! Either comment here, or hop onto IRC in , or the impl period Gitter under .