Code change:
} } } <ins> fn expr_as_call_operand( &mut self, mut block: BasicBlock, scope: Option<region::Scope>, expr: Expr<'tcx>, ) -> BlockAnd<Operand<'tcx>> { debug!("expr_as_call_operand(block={:?}, expr={:?})", block, expr); let this = self; if let ExprKind::Scope { region_scope, lint_level, value } = expr.kind { let source_info = this.source_info(expr.span); let region_scope = (region_scope, source_info); return this.in_scope(region_scope, lint_level, |this| { this.as_call_operand(block, scope, value) }); } let tcx = this.hir.tcx(); if tcx.features().unsized_locals { let ty = expr.ty; let span = expr.span; let param_env = this.hir.param_env; if !ty.is_sized(tcx.at(span), param_env) { // !sized means !copy, so this is an unsized move assert!(!ty.is_copy_modulo_regions(tcx, param_env, span)); // As described above, detect the case where we are passing a value of unsized // type, and that value is coming from the deref of a box. if let ExprKind::Deref { ref arg } = expr.kind { let arg = this.hir.mirror(arg.clone()); // Generate let tmp0 = arg0 let operand = unpack!(block = this.as_temp(block, scope, arg, Mutability::Mut)); // Return the operand *tmp0 to be used as the call argument let place = Place { local: operand, projection: tcx.intern_place_elems(&[PlaceElem::Deref]), }; return block.and(Operand::Move(place)); } } } this.expr_as_operand(block, scope, expr) } </ins> }

Related discussion:
text: To be clear, I wasn't proposing changing anything apart from MIR building either, I don't think. IIUC, what you proposed is that would be compiled to: whereas under my proposal (limited to apply to unsized parameters, instead of moved parameters) would yield: I think I mis-stated the problem earlier. It's not so much that your proposal will introduce compilation errors, it's that I think it changes the semantics of code like this in what I see as a surprising way: I believe that this code would compile to the following under your proposal: which means that would be invoked with the new value of , right? Under my proposal, the code would still compile, but it would behave in what I see as the expected fashion. Specifically, it would generate:
Isn't there a way to "lock" that value through the borrow-checker, so further accesses would be disallowed, until the call returns? I'd rather be stricter here. <hr/My point was that if your proposal affects sized moves, you're breaking stable reinitialization. If it doesn't affect sized moves, I don't see how this applies anymore:
Let me just chime in here and say that this is a pain in Miri. Unsized locals are pretty different from sized locals, I had to introduce a bunch of special hacks to make them work. MIR locals even needed a new state just for them: Lazily allocating locals seems odd to me, but at least we can consistently do that for all locals. Elsewhere however to make this lazy initialization actually work out and catch mistakes where an unsized local is "overwritten" with a value of different size: This all feels really unprincipled, and it would be great if at some point we could come up with a coherent semantics for unsized locals in MIR. The worst part is that the size of a local is implicitly determined on the first write to it. It would be much better to be explicit about that, e.g. at time.
I don't think we have anything like this today, but presumably we could add such a thing, but I'm not quite sure what you have in mind. When does this prohibition on further accesses take effect?