jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
The following code: gives the following error: However, is a , so this code can be made to compile by creating a new item: We should suggest this to user when a function is being called in the array initializer. <strikeAssuming that is accepted, we could eventually suggest an inline block.</strikeOn Nightly, we could suggest an inline block. <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
I think this would make a good first issue for someone looking to get started contributing. I'd be happy to mentor anyone who wants to work on this.
claim
Is this still an issue that I can work on?
Yes, assuming that is no longer working on this.
Should I claim it?
It looks like DavidHusicka hasn't had any activity this month, so I think it would be fine for you to take the issue. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about how to get started implementing this.
claim

Related discussion:
text: This directory contains the source code of the rust project, including: - The test suite - The bootstrapping build system - Various submodules for tools, like rustdoc, rls, etc.
Code change:
The following code: gives the following error: However, is a , so this code can be made to compile by creating a new item: We should suggest this to user when a function is being called in the array initializer. <strikeAssuming that is accepted, we could eventually suggest an inline block.</strikeOn Nightly, we could suggest an inline block. <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
I think this would make a good first issue for someone looking to get started contributing. I'd be happy to mentor anyone who wants to work on this.
claim
Is this still an issue that I can work on?
Yes, assuming that is no longer working on this.
Should I claim it?
It looks like DavidHusicka hasn't had any activity this month, so I think it would be fine for you to take the issue. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about how to get started implementing this.
claim

Related discussion:
text: = help: the following implementations were found: <Option<T> as Copy> = note: the `Copy` trait is required because the repeated element will be copied <ins> = help: consider creating a new `const` item and initializing 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];` = help: create an inline `const` block, see PR #2920 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2920> for more information </ins> error: aborting due to previous error
Code change:
The following code: gives the following error: However, is a , so this code can be made to compile by creating a new item: We should suggest this to user when a function is being called in the array initializer. <strikeAssuming that is accepted, we could eventually suggest an inline block.</strikeOn Nightly, we could suggest an inline block. <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
I think this would make a good first issue for someone looking to get started contributing. I'd be happy to mentor anyone who wants to work on this.
claim
Is this still an issue that I can work on?
Yes, assuming that is no longer working on this.
Should I claim it?
It looks like DavidHusicka hasn't had any activity this month, so I think it would be fine for you to take the issue. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about how to get started implementing this.
claim

Related discussion:
text: <ins> fn main() { // should hint to create an inline `const` block // or to create a new `const` item let strings: [String; 5] = [String::new(); 5]; //~^ ERROR the trait bound `String: Copy` is not satisfied println!("{:?}", strings); } </ins>
Code change:
The following code: gives the following error: However, is a , so this code can be made to compile by creating a new item: We should suggest this to user when a function is being called in the array initializer. <strikeAssuming that is accepted, we could eventually suggest an inline block.</strikeOn Nightly, we could suggest an inline block. <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
I think this would make a good first issue for someone looking to get started contributing. I'd be happy to mentor anyone who wants to work on this.
claim
Is this still an issue that I can work on?
Yes, assuming that is no longer working on this.
Should I claim it?
It looks like DavidHusicka hasn't had any activity this month, so I think it would be fine for you to take the issue. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions about how to get started implementing this.
claim

Related discussion:
text: <ins> error[E0277]: the trait bound `String: Copy` is not satisfied --> $DIR/const-fn-in-vec.rs:4:32 | LL |     let strings: [String; 5] = [String::new(); 5]; |                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `String` | = note: the `Copy` trait is required because the repeated element will be copied = help: consider creating a new `const` item and initializing 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];` = help: create an inline `const` block, see PR #2920 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2920> for more information error: aborting due to previous error For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0277`. </ins>
Code change:
So I had a trait system in my (nightly) code for a while now that utilized specialization, but it no longer seems to be working after a recent update: Now, I haven't been following the development of the specialization feature too closely, so it is possible that this is somehow actually intended and I am missing something. However, given that this previously compiled and ran just fine a couple weeks ago and given that the specialization incomplete warning was only recently, I am inclined to think that it is probably a regression of some sort. compiler version:
Another MVCE (): Regressed in , looks like
cc as far as I can tell this wasn't an intended outcome of the change?
It wasn't really, it was just slightly more complex to have this still work after that PR.
Would you mind describing at a high level what needs to be done?
It looks like the problem stems from the bound predicate not being fully normalized when checking the defaulted associated type. From my reproducer above: which should instead be . I'm not certain yet how this ought to be implemented. Perhaps a pass after normalization that looks for occurrences of the defaulted type ( in this case) and replaces it with the defaulted type. Seems simple enough, in theory :) But maybe there are cases I'm not thinking of.

Related discussion:
text: use rustc_infer::infer::{self, InferOk, TyCtxtInferExt}; use rustc_middle::ty; use rustc_middle::ty::error::{ExpectedFound, TypeError}; <del> use rustc_middle::ty::subst::{InternalSubsts, Subst, SubstsRef}; </del> <ins> use rustc_middle::ty::subst::{InternalSubsts, Subst}; </ins> use rustc_middle::ty::util::ExplicitSelf; <del> use rustc_middle::ty::{GenericParamDefKind, ToPredicate, TyCtxt, WithConstness}; </del> <ins> use rustc_middle::ty::{GenericParamDefKind, ToPredicate, TyCtxt}; </ins> use rustc_span::Span; use rustc_trait_selection::traits::error_reporting::InferCtxtExt; use rustc_trait_selection::traits::{self, ObligationCause, ObligationCauseCode, Reveal}; use super::{potentially_plural_count, FnCtxt, Inherited}; <del> use std::iter; </del> /// Checks that a method from an impl conforms to the signature of /// the same method as declared in the trait.
Code change:
So I had a trait system in my (nightly) code for a while now that utilized specialization, but it no longer seems to be working after a recent update: Now, I haven't been following the development of the specialization feature too closely, so it is possible that this is somehow actually intended and I am missing something. However, given that this previously compiled and ran just fine a couple weeks ago and given that the specialization incomplete warning was only recently, I am inclined to think that it is probably a regression of some sort. compiler version:
Another MVCE (): Regressed in , looks like
cc as far as I can tell this wasn't an intended outcome of the change?
It wasn't really, it was just slightly more complex to have this still work after that PR.
Would you mind describing at a high level what needs to be done?
It looks like the problem stems from the bound predicate not being fully normalized when checking the defaulted associated type. From my reproducer above: which should instead be . I'm not certain yet how this ought to be implemented. Perhaps a pass after normalization that looks for occurrences of the defaulted type ( in this case) and replaces it with the defaulted type. Seems simple enough, in theory :) But maybe there are cases I'm not thinking of.

Related discussion:
text: return Ok(()); } <del> let param_env = tcx.param_env(impl_ty.def_id); </del> // Given // // impl<A, B> Foo<u32> for (A, B) {
Code change:
So I had a trait system in my (nightly) code for a while now that utilized specialization, but it no longer seems to be working after a recent update: Now, I haven't been following the development of the specialization feature too closely, so it is possible that this is somehow actually intended and I am missing something. However, given that this previously compiled and ran just fine a couple weeks ago and given that the specialization incomplete warning was only recently, I am inclined to think that it is probably a regression of some sort. compiler version:
Another MVCE (): Regressed in , looks like
cc as far as I can tell this wasn't an intended outcome of the change?
It wasn't really, it was just slightly more complex to have this still work after that PR.
Would you mind describing at a high level what needs to be done?
It looks like the problem stems from the bound predicate not being fully normalized when checking the defaulted associated type. From my reproducer above: which should instead be . I'm not certain yet how this ought to be implemented. Perhaps a pass after normalization that looks for occurrences of the defaulted type ( in this case) and replaces it with the defaulted type. Seems simple enough, in theory :) But maybe there are cases I'm not thinking of.

Related discussion:
text: impl_ty_substs.rebase_onto(tcx, impl_ty.container.id(), impl_trait_ref.substs); let impl_ty_value = tcx.type_of(impl_ty.def_id); <del> // Map the predicate from the trait to the corresponding one for the impl. // For example: </del> <ins> let param_env = tcx.param_env(impl_ty.def_id); // When checking something like </ins> // <del> // trait X<A> { type Y<'a>: PartialEq<A> } impl X for T { type Y<'a> = &'a S; } // impl<'x> X<&'x u32> for () { type Y<'c> = &'c u32; } </del> <ins> // trait X { type Y: PartialEq<<Self as X>::Y> } // impl X for T { default type Y = S; } </ins> // <del> // For the `for<'a> <<Self as X<A>>::Y<'a>: PartialEq<A>` bound, this // function would translate and partially normalize // `[<Self as X<A>>::Y<'a>, A]` to `[&'a u32, &'x u32]`. let translate_predicate_substs = move |predicate_substs: SubstsRef<'tcx>| { tcx.mk_substs( iter::once(impl_ty_value.into()) .chain(predicate_substs[1..].iter().map(|s| s.subst(tcx, rebased_substs))), ) </del> <ins> // We will have to prove the bound S: PartialEq<<T as X>::Y>. In this case // we want <T as X>::Y to normalize to S. This is valid because we are // checking the default value specifically here. Add this equality to the // ParamEnv for normalization specifically. let normalize_param_env = { let mut predicates = param_env.caller_bounds().iter().collect::<Vec<_>>(); predicates.push( ty::Binder::dummy(ty::ProjectionPredicate { projection_ty: ty::ProjectionTy { item_def_id: trait_ty.def_id, substs: rebased_substs, }, ty: impl_ty_value, }) .to_predicate(tcx), ); ty::ParamEnv::new(tcx.intern_predicates(&predicates), Reveal::UserFacing, None) </ins> }; tcx.infer_ctxt().enter(move |infcx| {
Code change:
So I had a trait system in my (nightly) code for a while now that utilized specialization, but it no longer seems to be working after a recent update: Now, I haven't been following the development of the specialization feature too closely, so it is possible that this is somehow actually intended and I am missing something. However, given that this previously compiled and ran just fine a couple weeks ago and given that the specialization incomplete warning was only recently, I am inclined to think that it is probably a regression of some sort. compiler version:
Another MVCE (): Regressed in , looks like
cc as far as I can tell this wasn't an intended outcome of the change?
It wasn't really, it was just slightly more complex to have this still work after that PR.
Would you mind describing at a high level what needs to be done?
It looks like the problem stems from the bound predicate not being fully normalized when checking the defaulted associated type. From my reproducer above: which should instead be . I'm not certain yet how this ought to be implemented. Perhaps a pass after normalization that looks for occurrences of the defaulted type ( in this case) and replaces it with the defaulted type. Seems simple enough, in theory :) But maybe there are cases I'm not thinking of.

Related discussion:
text: ); let predicates = tcx.projection_predicates(trait_ty.def_id); debug!("compare_projection_bounds: projection_predicates={:?}", predicates); for predicate in predicates { <del> let concrete_ty_predicate = match predicate.kind() { ty::PredicateKind::Trait(poly_tr, c) => poly_tr .map_bound(|tr| { let trait_substs = translate_predicate_substs(tr.trait_ref.substs); ty::TraitRef { def_id: tr.def_id(), substs: trait_substs } }) .with_constness(*c) .to_predicate(tcx), ty::PredicateKind::Projection(poly_projection) => poly_projection .map_bound(|projection| { let projection_substs = translate_predicate_substs(projection.projection_ty.substs); ty::ProjectionPredicate { projection_ty: ty::ProjectionTy { substs: projection_substs, item_def_id: projection.projection_ty.item_def_id, }, ty: projection.ty.subst(tcx, rebased_substs), } }) .to_predicate(tcx), ty::PredicateKind::TypeOutlives(poly_outlives) => poly_outlives .map_bound(|outlives| { ty::OutlivesPredicate(impl_ty_value, outlives.1.subst(tcx, rebased_substs)) }) .to_predicate(tcx), _ => bug!("unexepected projection predicate kind: `{:?}`", predicate), }; </del> <ins> let concrete_ty_predicate = predicate.subst(tcx, rebased_substs); debug!("compare_projection_bounds: concrete predicate = {:?}", concrete_ty_predicate); </ins> let traits::Normalized { value: normalized_predicate, obligations } = traits::normalize( &mut selcx, <del> param_env, </del> <ins> normalize_param_env, </ins> normalize_cause.clone(), &concrete_ty_predicate, ); debug!("compare_projection_bounds: normalized predicate = {:?}", normalized_predicate); inh.register_predicates(obligations);
Code change:
So I had a trait system in my (nightly) code for a while now that utilized specialization, but it no longer seems to be working after a recent update: Now, I haven't been following the development of the specialization feature too closely, so it is possible that this is somehow actually intended and I am missing something. However, given that this previously compiled and ran just fine a couple weeks ago and given that the specialization incomplete warning was only recently, I am inclined to think that it is probably a regression of some sort. compiler version:
Another MVCE (): Regressed in , looks like
cc as far as I can tell this wasn't an intended outcome of the change?
It wasn't really, it was just slightly more complex to have this still work after that PR.
Would you mind describing at a high level what needs to be done?
It looks like the problem stems from the bound predicate not being fully normalized when checking the defaulted associated type. From my reproducer above: which should instead be . I'm not certain yet how this ought to be implemented. Perhaps a pass after normalization that looks for occurrences of the defaulted type ( in this case) and replaces it with the defaulted type. Seems simple enough, in theory :) But maybe there are cases I'm not thinking of.

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // Test that associated type bounds are correctly normalized when checking // default associated type values. // check-pass #![allow(incomplete_features)] #![feature(specialization)] #[derive(PartialEq)] enum Never {} trait Foo { type Assoc: PartialEq; // PartialEq<<Self as Foo>::Assoc> } impl<T> Foo for T { default type Assoc = Never; } trait Trait1 { type Selection: PartialEq; } trait Trait2: PartialEq<Self> {} impl<T: Trait2> Trait1 for T { default type Selection = T; } fn main() {} </ins>
Code change:
Hey, This code attempts to increment a integer behind a tokio RwLock by 1, This causes a compiler error. Minimized example that reproduces the ICE: But, making this very small modification makes the code not break the compiler my contains as a dependency. This code does not compile, and generates the following error (full backtrace in bottom of the issue) rustc --version --verbose also breaks the same way on (the traces attached are from nightly ^) rustup run stable rustc --version -v
Confirmed this also breaks the same way on
MCVE: Fun fact: changing to doesn't ICE. Also I can't inline an instance into the function. It has to be created outside?!. Weird stuff somtimes. Also it would be nice to get rid of the deref, but I couldn't figure out how. So it's on this currently. Also worth mentioning: this needs . isn't sufficient. modify labels: -E-needs-mcve +E-needs-bisection
The bisection doesn't emit anything useful. This panics like forever. I went back to 2019-01-01 (with the old API and stuff) and it still ICEs there, so I guess it was like this forever. Feel free to add the tag again, but I'll remove it. modify labels: -E-needs-bisection
modify labels: -E-needs-bisection

Related discussion:
text: /// N.B., **No cleanup is scheduled for this temporary.** You should /// call `schedule_drop` once the temporary is initialized. crate fn temp(&mut self, ty: Ty<'tcx>, span: Span) -> Place<'tcx> { <del> let temp = self.local_decls.push(LocalDecl::new(ty, span)); </del> <ins> // Mark this local as internal to avoid temporaries with types not present in the // user's code resulting in ICEs from the generator transform. let temp = self.local_decls.push(LocalDecl::new(ty, span).internal()); </ins> let place = Place::from(temp); debug!("temp: created temp {:?} with type {:?}", place, self.local_decls[temp].ty); place
Code change:
Hey, This code attempts to increment a integer behind a tokio RwLock by 1, This causes a compiler error. Minimized example that reproduces the ICE: But, making this very small modification makes the code not break the compiler my contains as a dependency. This code does not compile, and generates the following error (full backtrace in bottom of the issue) rustc --version --verbose also breaks the same way on (the traces attached are from nightly ^) rustup run stable rustc --version -v
Confirmed this also breaks the same way on
MCVE: Fun fact: changing to doesn't ICE. Also I can't inline an instance into the function. It has to be created outside?!. Weird stuff somtimes. Also it would be nice to get rid of the deref, but I couldn't figure out how. So it's on this currently. Also worth mentioning: this needs . isn't sufficient. modify labels: -E-needs-mcve +E-needs-bisection
The bisection doesn't emit anything useful. This panics like forever. I went back to 2019-01-01 (with the old API and stuff) and it still ICEs there, so I guess it was like this forever. Feel free to add the tag again, but I'll remove it. modify labels: -E-needs-bisection
modify labels: -E-needs-bisection

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // build-pass // compile-flags:-Copt-level=0 // edition:2018 struct S<T>(std::marker::PhantomData<T>); impl<T> std::ops::Deref for S<T> { type Target = T; fn deref(&self) -> &Self::Target { todo!() } } impl<T> std::ops::DerefMut for S<T> { fn deref_mut(&mut self) -> &mut Self::Target { todo!() } } async fn new() -> S<u64> { todo!() } async fn crash() { *new().await = 1 + 1; } fn main() { let _ = crash(); } </ins>
Code change:
() Errors: Removing the makes this generate appropriate error messages. Seems like combining and is rather uncommon, at least there are no other issues with both labels yet. modify labels: I-ICE, T-compiler, requires-nightly, F-associatedtypedefaults, F-genericassociatedtypes, A-traits, A-associated-items, C-bug
Okay, this bug allows you to do basically everything. For example () () arbitrary transmutes (as long as LLVM doesn’t complain like it did above) ()
Error: Parsing relabel command in failed: ...'fy labels:' '"I-unsound'... Please let know if you're having trouble with this bot.
Error: Label can only be set by Rust team members Please let know if you're having trouble with this bot.
Error: Parsing relabel command in failed: ...'fy labels:' '"I-unsound'... Please let know if you're having trouble with this bot.
Error: Label can only be set by Rust team members Please let know if you're having trouble with this bot.
Here's another one ICE's with:
Triage: This is no longer ICE with the latest nightly, marking as E-needs-test.
Looks like this was the fix:

Related discussion:
text: <ins> #![feature(associated_type_defaults)] #![feature(generic_associated_types)] #![allow(incomplete_features)] trait Trait1 { fn foo(); } trait Trait2 { type Associated: Trait1 = Self; //~^ ERROR: the trait bound `Self: Trait1` is not satisfied //~| the size for values of type `Self` cannot be known } impl Trait2 for () {} fn call_foo<T: Trait2>() { T::Associated::foo() } fn main() { call_foo::<()>() } </ins>
Code change:
() Errors: Removing the makes this generate appropriate error messages. Seems like combining and is rather uncommon, at least there are no other issues with both labels yet. modify labels: I-ICE, T-compiler, requires-nightly, F-associatedtypedefaults, F-genericassociatedtypes, A-traits, A-associated-items, C-bug
Okay, this bug allows you to do basically everything. For example () () arbitrary transmutes (as long as LLVM doesn’t complain like it did above) ()
Error: Parsing relabel command in failed: ...'fy labels:' '"I-unsound'... Please let know if you're having trouble with this bot.
Error: Label can only be set by Rust team members Please let know if you're having trouble with this bot.
Error: Parsing relabel command in failed: ...'fy labels:' '"I-unsound'... Please let know if you're having trouble with this bot.
Error: Label can only be set by Rust team members Please let know if you're having trouble with this bot.
Here's another one ICE's with:
Triage: This is no longer ICE with the latest nightly, marking as E-needs-test.
Looks like this was the fix:

Related discussion:
text: <ins> error[E0277]: the trait bound `Self: Trait1` is not satisfied --> $DIR/issue-74816.rs:10:5 | LL |     type Associated: Trait1 = Self; |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^------^^^^^^^^ |     |                | |     |                required by this bound in `Trait2::Associated` |     the trait `Trait1` is not implemented for `Self` | help: consider further restricting `Self` | LL | trait Trait2: Trait1 { |             ^^^^^^^^ error[E0277]: the size for values of type `Self` cannot be known at compilation time --> $DIR/issue-74816.rs:10:5 | LL |     type Associated: Trait1 = Self; |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |     | |     doesn't have a size known at compile-time |     required by this bound in `Trait2::Associated` | help: consider further restricting `Self` | LL | trait Trait2: Sized { |             ^^^^^^^ error: aborting due to 2 previous errors For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0277`. </ins>