jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
Here is a very simple program which employs trait objects: : : : When this program is compiled and run, it fails with segmentation fault: This program is not correct. You can see that function produces a for arbitrary lifetime , but the local variable is valid only for body. A pointer to , however, is saved to the , and when it is accessed inside , a segmentation fault occurs. However, Rust still compiles it. I thought that borrowing checker should prevent this kind of errors. BTW, I can write or and it will compile either way, but I thought that when going from plain pointers to trait objects I should always specify exact kind of trait object. Not sure that I'm right here thought.
cc
Sounds similar to ; potential duplicate?
This appears to be fixed: Original example code updated to current rust: : : :
Awesome! flagging as needstest (not sure if one already exists)

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // Copyright 2014 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT // file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at // http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT. // // Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or // http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license // <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your // option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed // except according to those terms. fn main() { let mut array = [1, 2, 3]; //~^ ERROR cannot determine a type for this local variable: cannot determine the type of this integ let pie_slice = array.slice(1, 2); } </ins>
Code change:
Here is a very simple program which employs trait objects: : : : When this program is compiled and run, it fails with segmentation fault: This program is not correct. You can see that function produces a for arbitrary lifetime , but the local variable is valid only for body. A pointer to , however, is saved to the , and when it is accessed inside , a segmentation fault occurs. However, Rust still compiles it. I thought that borrowing checker should prevent this kind of errors. BTW, I can write or and it will compile either way, but I thought that when going from plain pointers to trait objects I should always specify exact kind of trait object. Not sure that I'm right here thought.
cc
Sounds similar to ; potential duplicate?
This appears to be fixed: Original example code updated to current rust: : : :
Awesome! flagging as needstest (not sure if one already exists)

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // Copyright 2014 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT // file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at // http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT. // // Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or // http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license // <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your // option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed // except according to those terms. pub fn foo(params: Option<&[&str]>) -> uint { params.unwrap().head().unwrap().len() } fn main() { let name = "Foo"; let msg = foo(Some(&[name.as_slice()])); //~^ ERROR mismatched types: expected `core::option::Option<&[&str]>` assert_eq!(msg, 3); } </ins>
Code change:
Here is a very simple program which employs trait objects: : : : When this program is compiled and run, it fails with segmentation fault: This program is not correct. You can see that function produces a for arbitrary lifetime , but the local variable is valid only for body. A pointer to , however, is saved to the , and when it is accessed inside , a segmentation fault occurs. However, Rust still compiles it. I thought that borrowing checker should prevent this kind of errors. BTW, I can write or and it will compile either way, but I thought that when going from plain pointers to trait objects I should always specify exact kind of trait object. Not sure that I'm right here thought.
cc
Sounds similar to ; potential duplicate?
This appears to be fixed: Original example code updated to current rust: : : :
Awesome! flagging as needstest (not sure if one already exists)

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // Copyright 2014 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT // file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at // http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT. // // Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or // http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license // <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your // option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed // except according to those terms. fn main() { let v = &[]; //~ ERROR cannot determine a type for this local variable: unconstrained type let it = v.iter(); } </ins>
Code change:
Here is a very simple program which employs trait objects: : : : When this program is compiled and run, it fails with segmentation fault: This program is not correct. You can see that function produces a for arbitrary lifetime , but the local variable is valid only for body. A pointer to , however, is saved to the , and when it is accessed inside , a segmentation fault occurs. However, Rust still compiles it. I thought that borrowing checker should prevent this kind of errors. BTW, I can write or and it will compile either way, but I thought that when going from plain pointers to trait objects I should always specify exact kind of trait object. Not sure that I'm right here thought.
cc
Sounds similar to ; potential duplicate?
This appears to be fixed: Original example code updated to current rust: : : :
Awesome! flagging as needstest (not sure if one already exists)

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // Copyright 2014 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT // file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at // http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT. // // Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or // http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license // <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your // option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed // except according to those terms. // error-pattern:explicit failure pub fn main() { fail!(); println!("{}", 1i); } </ins>
Code change:
Here is a very simple program which employs trait objects: : : : When this program is compiled and run, it fails with segmentation fault: This program is not correct. You can see that function produces a for arbitrary lifetime , but the local variable is valid only for body. A pointer to , however, is saved to the , and when it is accessed inside , a segmentation fault occurs. However, Rust still compiles it. I thought that borrowing checker should prevent this kind of errors. BTW, I can write or and it will compile either way, but I thought that when going from plain pointers to trait objects I should always specify exact kind of trait object. Not sure that I'm right here thought.
cc
Sounds similar to ; potential duplicate?
This appears to be fixed: Original example code updated to current rust: : : :
Awesome! flagging as needstest (not sure if one already exists)

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // Copyright 2014 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT // file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at // http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT. // // Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or // http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license // <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your // option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed // except according to those terms. // error-pattern:bad input fn main() { Some("foo").unwrap_or(fail!("bad input")).to_string(); } </ins>
Code change:
Here is a very simple program which employs trait objects: : : : When this program is compiled and run, it fails with segmentation fault: This program is not correct. You can see that function produces a for arbitrary lifetime , but the local variable is valid only for body. A pointer to , however, is saved to the , and when it is accessed inside , a segmentation fault occurs. However, Rust still compiles it. I thought that borrowing checker should prevent this kind of errors. BTW, I can write or and it will compile either way, but I thought that when going from plain pointers to trait objects I should always specify exact kind of trait object. Not sure that I'm right here thought.
cc
Sounds similar to ; potential duplicate?
This appears to be fixed: Original example code updated to current rust: : : :
Awesome! flagging as needstest (not sure if one already exists)

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // Copyright 2014 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT // file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at // http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT. // // Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or // http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license // <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your // option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed // except according to those terms. pub mod two_tuple { trait T {} struct P<'a>(&'a T + 'a, &'a T + 'a); pub fn f<'a>(car: &'a T, cdr: &'a T) -> P<'a> { P(car, cdr) } } pub mod two_fields { trait T {} struct P<'a> { car: &'a T + 'a, cdr: &'a T + 'a } pub fn f<'a>(car: &'a T, cdr: &'a T) -> P<'a> { P{ car: car, cdr: cdr } } } fn main() {} </ins>
Code change:
Here is a very simple program which employs trait objects: : : : When this program is compiled and run, it fails with segmentation fault: This program is not correct. You can see that function produces a for arbitrary lifetime , but the local variable is valid only for body. A pointer to , however, is saved to the , and when it is accessed inside , a segmentation fault occurs. However, Rust still compiles it. I thought that borrowing checker should prevent this kind of errors. BTW, I can write or and it will compile either way, but I thought that when going from plain pointers to trait objects I should always specify exact kind of trait object. Not sure that I'm right here thought.
cc
Sounds similar to ; potential duplicate?
This appears to be fixed: Original example code updated to current rust: : : :
Awesome! flagging as needstest (not sure if one already exists)

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // Copyright 2014 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT // file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at // http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT. // // Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or // http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license // <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your // option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed // except according to those terms. fn main() { if true { proc(_) {} } else { proc(_: &mut ()) {} }; } </ins>
Code change:
I'm basing this suggestion on two things. One, that if you follow it, the code compiles: and two, that the diagnostic help you get when you try to use a in the repeat position suggests something very similar, see "other cases." It would require the compiler to know that a value that is attempted to be repeated is able though, which I don't know whether it can, but I figured I'd suggest this, and you can reject it if it isn't possible to do. Alternatively, the help text could say something like "if the value can be made , consider creating [...]" I was inspired to make this issue based on the output you get when you try to use a as an array initializer. For instance, the code produces the output No response
hey why im getting this error message all over my github repository ! whenever i commit some changes, The first changes i able to create pull request but after some other changes im not able to do that why im getting these error ! Please help
I don't think your comment is related to this issue? If this is a problem you've encountered while trying to fix this issue, please reach out on instead.

Related discussion:
text: } _ => {} } <del> // If someone calls a const fn, they can extract that call out into a separate constant (or a const // block in the future), so we check that to tell them that in the diagnostic. Does not affect typeck. let is_const_fn = match element.kind { </del> <ins> // If someone calls a const fn or constructs a const value, they can extract that // out into a separate constant (or a const block in the future), so we check that // to tell them that in the diagnostic. Does not affect typeck. let is_constable = match element.kind { </ins> hir::ExprKind::Call(func, _args) => match *self.node_ty(func.hir_id).kind() { <del> ty::FnDef(def_id, _) => tcx.is_const_fn(def_id), _ => false, </del> <ins> ty::FnDef(def_id, _) if tcx.is_const_fn(def_id) => traits::IsConstable::Fn, _ => traits::IsConstable::No, </ins> }, <del> _ => false, </del> <ins> hir::ExprKind::Path(qpath) => { match self.typeck_results.borrow().qpath_res(&qpath, element.hir_id) { Res::Def(DefKind::Ctor(_, CtorKind::Const), _) => traits::IsConstable::Ctor, _ => traits::IsConstable::No, } } _ => traits::IsConstable::No, </ins> }; // If the length is 0, we don't create any elements, so we don't copy any. If the length is 1, we // don't copy that one element, we move it. Only check for Copy if the length is larger. if count.try_eval_target_usize(tcx, self.param_env).map_or(true, |len| len > 1) { let lang_item = self.tcx.require_lang_item(LangItem::Copy, None); <del> let code = traits::ObligationCauseCode::RepeatElementCopy { is_const_fn }; </del> <ins> let code = traits::ObligationCauseCode::RepeatElementCopy { is_constable, elt_type: element_ty, elt_span: element.span, elt_stmt_span: self .tcx .hir() .parent_iter(element.hir_id) .find_map(|(_, node)| match node { hir::Node::Item(it) => Some(it.span), hir::Node::Stmt(stmt) => Some(stmt.span), _ => None, }) .expect("array repeat expressions must be inside an item or statement"), }; </ins> self.require_type_meets(element_ty, element.span, code, lang_item); } }
Code change:
I'm basing this suggestion on two things. One, that if you follow it, the code compiles: and two, that the diagnostic help you get when you try to use a in the repeat position suggests something very similar, see "other cases." It would require the compiler to know that a value that is attempted to be repeated is able though, which I don't know whether it can, but I figured I'd suggest this, and you can reject it if it isn't possible to do. Alternatively, the help text could say something like "if the value can be made , consider creating [...]" I was inspired to make this issue based on the output you get when you try to use a as an array initializer. For instance, the code produces the output No response
hey why im getting this error message all over my github repository ! whenever i commit some changes, The first changes i able to create pull request but after some other changes im not able to do that why im getting these error ! Please help
I don't think your comment is related to this issue? If this is a problem you've encountered while trying to fix this issue, please reach out on instead.

Related discussion:
text: InlineAsmSized, /// `[expr; N]` requires `type_of(expr): Copy`. RepeatElementCopy { <del> /// If element is a `const fn` we display a help message suggesting to move the /// function call to a new `const` item while saying that `T` doesn't implement `Copy`. is_const_fn: bool, </del> <ins> /// If element is a `const fn` or const ctor we display a help message suggesting /// to move it to a new `const` item while saying that `T` doesn't implement `Copy`. is_constable: IsConstable, elt_type: Ty<'tcx>, elt_span: Span, /// Span of the statement/item in which the repeat expression occurs. We can use this to /// place a `const` declaration before it elt_stmt_span: Span, </ins> }, /// Types of fields (other than the last, except for packed structs) in a struct must be sized.
Code change:
I'm basing this suggestion on two things. One, that if you follow it, the code compiles: and two, that the diagnostic help you get when you try to use a in the repeat position suggests something very similar, see "other cases." It would require the compiler to know that a value that is attempted to be repeated is able though, which I don't know whether it can, but I figured I'd suggest this, and you can reject it if it isn't possible to do. Alternatively, the help text could say something like "if the value can be made , consider creating [...]" I was inspired to make this issue based on the output you get when you try to use a as an array initializer. For instance, the code produces the output No response
hey why im getting this error message all over my github repository ! whenever i commit some changes, The first changes i able to create pull request but after some other changes im not able to do that why im getting these error ! Please help
I don't think your comment is related to this issue? If this is a problem you've encountered while trying to fix this issue, please reach out on instead.

Related discussion:
text: TypeAlias(InternedObligationCauseCode<'tcx>, Span, DefId), } <ins> /// Whether a value can be extracted into a const. /// Used for diagnostics around array repeat expressions. #[derive(Copy, Clone, Debug, PartialEq, Eq, HashStable, TyEncodable, TyDecodable)] pub enum IsConstable { No, /// Call to a const fn Fn, /// Use of a const ctor Ctor, } crate::TrivialTypeTraversalAndLiftImpls! { IsConstable, } </ins> /// The 'location' at which we try to perform HIR-based wf checking. /// This information is used to obtain an `hir::Ty`, which /// we can walk in order to obtain precise spans for any
Code change:
I'm basing this suggestion on two things. One, that if you follow it, the code compiles: and two, that the diagnostic help you get when you try to use a in the repeat position suggests something very similar, see "other cases." It would require the compiler to know that a value that is attempted to be repeated is able though, which I don't know whether it can, but I figured I'd suggest this, and you can reject it if it isn't possible to do. Alternatively, the help text could say something like "if the value can be made , consider creating [...]" I was inspired to make this issue based on the output you get when you try to use a as an array initializer. For instance, the code produces the output No response
hey why im getting this error message all over my github repository ! whenever i commit some changes, The first changes i able to create pull request but after some other changes im not able to do that why im getting these error ! Please help
I don't think your comment is related to this issue? If this is a problem you've encountered while trying to fix this issue, please reach out on instead.

Related discussion:
text: use rustc_infer::infer::type_variable::{TypeVariableOrigin, TypeVariableOriginKind}; use rustc_infer::infer::{DefineOpaqueTypes, InferOk, LateBoundRegionConversionTime}; use rustc_middle::hir::map; <ins> use rustc_middle::traits::IsConstable; </ins> use rustc_middle::ty::error::TypeError::{self, Sorts}; use rustc_middle::ty::{ self, suggest_arbitrary_trait_bound, suggest_constraining_type_param, AdtKind,
Code change:
I'm basing this suggestion on two things. One, that if you follow it, the code compiles: and two, that the diagnostic help you get when you try to use a in the repeat position suggests something very similar, see "other cases." It would require the compiler to know that a value that is attempted to be repeated is able though, which I don't know whether it can, but I figured I'd suggest this, and you can reject it if it isn't possible to do. Alternatively, the help text could say something like "if the value can be made , consider creating [...]" I was inspired to make this issue based on the output you get when you try to use a as an array initializer. For instance, the code produces the output No response
hey why im getting this error message all over my github repository ! whenever i commit some changes, The first changes i able to create pull request but after some other changes im not able to do that why im getting these error ! Please help
I don't think your comment is related to this issue? If this is a problem you've encountered while trying to fix this issue, please reach out on instead.

Related discussion:
text: )); } } <del> ObligationCauseCode::RepeatElementCopy { is_const_fn } => { </del> <ins> ObligationCauseCode::RepeatElementCopy { is_constable, elt_type, elt_span, elt_stmt_span } => { </ins> err.note( "the `Copy` trait is required because this value will be copied for each element of the array", ); <del> if is_const_fn { err.help( "consider creating a new `const` item and initializing it with the result  of the function call to be used in the repeat position, like  `const VAL: Type = const_fn();` and `let x = [VAL; 42];`", ); </del> <ins> let value_kind = match is_constable { IsConstable::Fn => Some("the result of the function call"), IsConstable::Ctor => Some("the result of the constructor"), _ => None }; let sm = tcx.sess.source_map(); if let Some(value_kind) = value_kind && let Ok(snip) = sm.span_to_snippet(elt_span) { let help_msg = format!( "consider creating a new `const` item and initializing it with {value_kind}  to be used in the repeat position"); let indentation = sm.indentation_before(elt_stmt_span).unwrap_or_default(); err.multipart_suggestion(help_msg, vec![ (elt_stmt_span.shrink_to_lo(), format!("const ARRAY_REPEAT_VALUE: {elt_type} = {snip};n{indentation}")), (elt_span, "ARRAY_REPEAT_VALUE".to_string()) ], Applicability::MachineApplicable); </ins> } <del> if self.tcx.sess.is_nightly_build() && is_const_fn { </del> <ins> if self.tcx.sess.is_nightly_build() && matches!(is_constable, IsConstable::Fn|IsConstable::Ctor) { </ins> err.help( "create an inline `const` block, see RFC #2920  <https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2920> for more information",
Code change:
I'm basing this suggestion on two things. One, that if you follow it, the code compiles: and two, that the diagnostic help you get when you try to use a in the repeat position suggests something very similar, see "other cases." It would require the compiler to know that a value that is attempted to be repeated is able though, which I don't know whether it can, but I figured I'd suggest this, and you can reject it if it isn't possible to do. Alternatively, the help text could say something like "if the value can be made , consider creating [...]" I was inspired to make this issue based on the output you get when you try to use a as an array initializer. For instance, the code produces the output No response
hey why im getting this error message all over my github repository ! whenever i commit some changes, The first changes i able to create pull request but after some other changes im not able to do that why im getting these error ! Please help
I don't think your comment is related to this issue? If this is a problem you've encountered while trying to fix this issue, please reach out on instead.

Related discussion:
text: | = note: required for `Option<Bar>` to implement `Copy` = note: the `Copy` trait is required because this value will be copied for each element of the array <del> = help: consider creating a new `const` item and initializing it with the result of the function call to be used in the repeat position, like `const VAL: Type = const_fn();` and `let x = [VAL; 42];` </del> = help: create an inline `const` block, see RFC #2920 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2920> for more information help: consider annotating `Bar` with `#[derive(Copy)]` | LL + #[derive(Copy)] LL | struct Bar; | <ins> help: consider creating a new `const` item and initializing it with the result of the function call to be used in the repeat position | LL ~     const ARRAY_REPEAT_VALUE: Option<Bar> = no_copy(); LL ~     let _: [Option<Bar>; 2] = [ARRAY_REPEAT_VALUE; 2]; | </ins> error: aborting due to previous error