jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
Test case: Compiles successfully on , causes an ICE on . Diff contains only , CC Found while trying to minimize , but filed separately since the error message is different and this one has a small test case.
Do you have a backtrace?
Yes of course. Sorry I forgot to include it: rust error: internal compiler error: attempted .defid() on invalid def: Err note: the compiler unexpectedly panicked. this is a bug. note: we would appreciate a bug report: note: run with for a backtrace thread 'rustc' panicked at 'Box<Any', stack backtrace: 1: 0x7fc35e73fdf3 - std::sys::imp::backtrace::tracing::imp::write::hdfa3e34b856f69a3 2: 0x7fc35e74e5dd - std::panicking::defaulthook::{{closure}}::h20f8c1082e0ce86e 3: 0x7fc35e74e17b - std::panicking::defaulthook::hd31552ac08c2a241 4: 0x7fc35e74ea68 - std::panicking::rustpanicwithhook::h73969d230a072c1a 5: 0x7fc357eda667 - std::panicking::beginpanic::hb89a2261f4776ce3 6: 0x7fc357eef99f - rustcerrors::Handler::bug::h13b3b29154320abd 7: 0x7fc35bab053a - rustc::session::optspanbugfmt::{{closure}}::hfea18dd68f59976d 8: 0x7fc35baafff7 - rustc::session::optspanbugfmt::h7d370a0810dbdbbd 9: 0x7fc35baafce2 - rustc::session::bugfmt::hcde5f50c54004a4f 10: 0x7fc35b984552 - rustc::hir::def::Def::defid::h728c22aafbe84efc 11: 0x7fc35c6ddb3a - rustcprivacy::ObsoleteVisiblePrivateTypesVisitor::pathisprivatetype::h24756a49a68d1da9 12: 0x7fc35c6d53db - rustc::hir::intravisit::walkty::h64b13c0c45b7a09a 13: 0x7fc35c6d49ba - rustc::hir::intravisit::Visitor::visitfn::ha8ad665c42b1d643 14: 0x7fc35c6de7cf - <rustcprivacy::ObsoleteVisiblePrivateTypesVisitor<'a, 'tcxas rustc::hir::intravisit::Visitor<'tcx::visititem::hae9f32c7942ccca1 15: 0x7fc35c6deab5 - <rustcprivacy::ObsoleteVisiblePrivateTypesVisitor<'a, 'tcxas rustc::hir::intravisit::Visitor<'tcx::visititem::hae9f32c7942ccca1 16: 0x7fc35c6e1b7a - rustcprivacy::checkcrate::h5ba75e3c4ebe0690 17: 0x7fc35eaef747 - rustcdriver::driver::phase3runanalysispasses::{{closure}}::h388b9236cf305089 18: 0x7fc35ead66d6 - rustcdriver::driver::phase3runanalysispasses::h080c1a734c4f2909 19: 0x7fc35eac5425 - rustcdriver::driver::compileinput::hab55539b85c4ceed 20: 0x7fc35eb0ea51 - rustcdriver::runcompiler::h128b89b79f649304 21: 0x7fc35ea236fb - std::panicking::try::docall::h15bca94dda232804 22: 0x7fc35e757b06 - rustmaybecatchpanic 23: 0x7fc35ea44d01 - <F as alloc::boxed::FnBox<A::callbox::h8832766c4bda585b 24: 0x7fc35e74d470 - std::sys::imp::thread::Thread::new::threadstart::h7d03d727f96da002 25: 0x7fc357684453 - startthread 26: 0x7fc35e4147de - GI__clone 27: 0x0 - <unknown
triage: P-high Seems bad. Assigning to based on bisection.
Fixed in .

Related discussion:
text: pub fn noop_fold_ty_binding<T: Folder>(b: TypeBinding, fld: &mut T) -> TypeBinding { TypeBinding { id: fld.new_id(b.id), <del> ident: b.ident, </del> <ins> ident: fld.fold_ident(b.ident), </ins> ty: fld.fold_ty(b.ty), span: fld.new_span(b.span), }
Code change:
Test case: Compiles successfully on , causes an ICE on . Diff contains only , CC Found while trying to minimize , but filed separately since the error message is different and this one has a small test case.
Do you have a backtrace?
Yes of course. Sorry I forgot to include it: rust error: internal compiler error: attempted .defid() on invalid def: Err note: the compiler unexpectedly panicked. this is a bug. note: we would appreciate a bug report: note: run with for a backtrace thread 'rustc' panicked at 'Box<Any', stack backtrace: 1: 0x7fc35e73fdf3 - std::sys::imp::backtrace::tracing::imp::write::hdfa3e34b856f69a3 2: 0x7fc35e74e5dd - std::panicking::defaulthook::{{closure}}::h20f8c1082e0ce86e 3: 0x7fc35e74e17b - std::panicking::defaulthook::hd31552ac08c2a241 4: 0x7fc35e74ea68 - std::panicking::rustpanicwithhook::h73969d230a072c1a 5: 0x7fc357eda667 - std::panicking::beginpanic::hb89a2261f4776ce3 6: 0x7fc357eef99f - rustcerrors::Handler::bug::h13b3b29154320abd 7: 0x7fc35bab053a - rustc::session::optspanbugfmt::{{closure}}::hfea18dd68f59976d 8: 0x7fc35baafff7 - rustc::session::optspanbugfmt::h7d370a0810dbdbbd 9: 0x7fc35baafce2 - rustc::session::bugfmt::hcde5f50c54004a4f 10: 0x7fc35b984552 - rustc::hir::def::Def::defid::h728c22aafbe84efc 11: 0x7fc35c6ddb3a - rustcprivacy::ObsoleteVisiblePrivateTypesVisitor::pathisprivatetype::h24756a49a68d1da9 12: 0x7fc35c6d53db - rustc::hir::intravisit::walkty::h64b13c0c45b7a09a 13: 0x7fc35c6d49ba - rustc::hir::intravisit::Visitor::visitfn::ha8ad665c42b1d643 14: 0x7fc35c6de7cf - <rustcprivacy::ObsoleteVisiblePrivateTypesVisitor<'a, 'tcxas rustc::hir::intravisit::Visitor<'tcx::visititem::hae9f32c7942ccca1 15: 0x7fc35c6deab5 - <rustcprivacy::ObsoleteVisiblePrivateTypesVisitor<'a, 'tcxas rustc::hir::intravisit::Visitor<'tcx::visititem::hae9f32c7942ccca1 16: 0x7fc35c6e1b7a - rustcprivacy::checkcrate::h5ba75e3c4ebe0690 17: 0x7fc35eaef747 - rustcdriver::driver::phase3runanalysispasses::{{closure}}::h388b9236cf305089 18: 0x7fc35ead66d6 - rustcdriver::driver::phase3runanalysispasses::h080c1a734c4f2909 19: 0x7fc35eac5425 - rustcdriver::driver::compileinput::hab55539b85c4ceed 20: 0x7fc35eb0ea51 - rustcdriver::runcompiler::h128b89b79f649304 21: 0x7fc35ea236fb - std::panicking::try::docall::h15bca94dda232804 22: 0x7fc35e757b06 - rustmaybecatchpanic 23: 0x7fc35ea44d01 - <F as alloc::boxed::FnBox<A::callbox::h8832766c4bda585b 24: 0x7fc35e74d470 - std::sys::imp::thread::Thread::new::threadstart::h7d03d727f96da002 25: 0x7fc357684453 - startthread 26: 0x7fc35e4147de - GI__clone 27: 0x0 - <unknown
triage: P-high Seems bad. Assigning to based on bisection.
Fixed in .

Related discussion:
text: .collect::<Vec<_>>() .into(), id: fld.new_id(id), <del> ident: ident, </del> <ins> ident: fld.fold_ident(ident), </ins> bounds: fld.fold_bounds(bounds), default: default.map(|x| fld.fold_ty(x)), span: span
Code change:
Test case: Compiles successfully on , causes an ICE on . Diff contains only , CC Found while trying to minimize , but filed separately since the error message is different and this one has a small test case.
Do you have a backtrace?
Yes of course. Sorry I forgot to include it: rust error: internal compiler error: attempted .defid() on invalid def: Err note: the compiler unexpectedly panicked. this is a bug. note: we would appreciate a bug report: note: run with for a backtrace thread 'rustc' panicked at 'Box<Any', stack backtrace: 1: 0x7fc35e73fdf3 - std::sys::imp::backtrace::tracing::imp::write::hdfa3e34b856f69a3 2: 0x7fc35e74e5dd - std::panicking::defaulthook::{{closure}}::h20f8c1082e0ce86e 3: 0x7fc35e74e17b - std::panicking::defaulthook::hd31552ac08c2a241 4: 0x7fc35e74ea68 - std::panicking::rustpanicwithhook::h73969d230a072c1a 5: 0x7fc357eda667 - std::panicking::beginpanic::hb89a2261f4776ce3 6: 0x7fc357eef99f - rustcerrors::Handler::bug::h13b3b29154320abd 7: 0x7fc35bab053a - rustc::session::optspanbugfmt::{{closure}}::hfea18dd68f59976d 8: 0x7fc35baafff7 - rustc::session::optspanbugfmt::h7d370a0810dbdbbd 9: 0x7fc35baafce2 - rustc::session::bugfmt::hcde5f50c54004a4f 10: 0x7fc35b984552 - rustc::hir::def::Def::defid::h728c22aafbe84efc 11: 0x7fc35c6ddb3a - rustcprivacy::ObsoleteVisiblePrivateTypesVisitor::pathisprivatetype::h24756a49a68d1da9 12: 0x7fc35c6d53db - rustc::hir::intravisit::walkty::h64b13c0c45b7a09a 13: 0x7fc35c6d49ba - rustc::hir::intravisit::Visitor::visitfn::ha8ad665c42b1d643 14: 0x7fc35c6de7cf - <rustcprivacy::ObsoleteVisiblePrivateTypesVisitor<'a, 'tcxas rustc::hir::intravisit::Visitor<'tcx::visititem::hae9f32c7942ccca1 15: 0x7fc35c6deab5 - <rustcprivacy::ObsoleteVisiblePrivateTypesVisitor<'a, 'tcxas rustc::hir::intravisit::Visitor<'tcx::visititem::hae9f32c7942ccca1 16: 0x7fc35c6e1b7a - rustcprivacy::checkcrate::h5ba75e3c4ebe0690 17: 0x7fc35eaef747 - rustcdriver::driver::phase3runanalysispasses::{{closure}}::h388b9236cf305089 18: 0x7fc35ead66d6 - rustcdriver::driver::phase3runanalysispasses::h080c1a734c4f2909 19: 0x7fc35eac5425 - rustcdriver::driver::compileinput::hab55539b85c4ceed 20: 0x7fc35eb0ea51 - rustcdriver::runcompiler::h128b89b79f649304 21: 0x7fc35ea236fb - std::panicking::try::docall::h15bca94dda232804 22: 0x7fc35e757b06 - rustmaybecatchpanic 23: 0x7fc35ea44d01 - <F as alloc::boxed::FnBox<A::callbox::h8832766c4bda585b 24: 0x7fc35e74d470 - std::sys::imp::thread::Thread::new::threadstart::h7d03d727f96da002 25: 0x7fc357684453 - startthread 26: 0x7fc35e4147de - GI__clone 27: 0x0 - <unknown
triage: P-high Seems bad. Assigning to based on bisection.
Fixed in .

Related discussion:
text: let fs = fields.move_map(|f| { Spanned { span: folder.new_span(f.span), node: ast::FieldPat { <del> ident: f.node.ident, </del> <ins> ident: folder.fold_ident(f.node.ident), </ins> pat: folder.fold_pat(f.node.pat), is_shorthand: f.node.is_shorthand, }}
Code change:
While digging around for something else I have just discovered that setting the UID for a subprocess with also causes a call to in the child. This should be documented. (Related to )
re-tagging as ; would you like this to appear in the docs, or not? If so, we're happy to do it, but want to make sure to not over-specify.
This seems like something we should document, yes. It's an unusual special-case that people should be aware of. This also interacts with .
Ok, this is ready for a PR. I've labeled it accordingly.
hi! It may be a long time now but may I ask if this issue is still needed? Because I can't find the call anywhere. I looked it as follows: Did I lookup the wrong function and structs?

Related discussion:
text: /// Sets the child process's user ID. This translates to a /// `setuid` call in the child process. Failure in the `setuid` /// call will cause the spawn to fail. <ins> /// /// # Notes /// /// This will also trigger a call to `setgroups(0, NULL)` in the child /// process if no groups have been specified. /// This removes supplementary groups that might have given the child /// unwanted permissions. </ins> #[stable(feature = "rust1", since = "1.0.0")] fn uid(&mut self, id: UserId) -> &mut process::Command;
Code change:
While digging around for something else I have just discovered that setting the UID for a subprocess with also causes a call to in the child. This should be documented. (Related to )
re-tagging as ; would you like this to appear in the docs, or not? If so, we're happy to do it, but want to make sure to not over-specify.
This seems like something we should document, yes. It's an unusual special-case that people should be aware of. This also interacts with .
Ok, this is ready for a PR. I've labeled it accordingly.
hi! It may be a long time now but may I ask if this issue is still needed? Because I can't find the call anywhere. I looked it as follows: Did I lookup the wrong function and structs?

Related discussion:
text: if let Some(u) = self.get_uid() { // When dropping privileges from root, the `setgroups` call // will remove any extraneous groups. We only drop groups <del> // if the current uid is 0 and we weren't given an explicit </del> <ins> // if we have CAP_SETGID and we weren't given an explicit </ins> // set of groups. If we don't call this, then even though our // uid has dropped, we may still have groups that enable us to // do super-user things. //FIXME: Redox kernel does not support setgroups yet #[cfg(not(target_os = "redox"))] <del> if libc::getuid() == 0 && self.get_groups().is_none() { cvt(libc::setgroups(0, crate::ptr::null()))?; </del> <ins> if self.get_groups().is_none() { let res = cvt(libc::setgroups(0, crate::ptr::null())); if let Err(e) = res { // Here we ignore the case of not having CAP_SETGID. // An alternative would be to require CAP_SETGID (in // addition to CAP_SETUID) for setting the UID. if e.raw_os_error() != Some(libc::EPERM) { return Err(e.into()); } } </ins> } cvt(libc::setuid(u as uid_t))?; }
Code change:
broke a library of mine where I had code like this: calls that used to call this trait method now call the new inherent method, but since that’s unstable the crate didn’t build until I . After that I could remove the trait since the new method has the same behavior. Anyway, this is just FYI. If we don’t want this kind of breakage we can’t add any new method to existing types ever, so that doesn’t sound viable. If the new method had had different behavior or if I wanted to keep supporting older compilers, it wouldn’t be too hard to rename my trait’s method or use UFCS.
Yeah in general we reserve the right to break downstream code with differences in method resolution because the downstream code can always be written in an "elaborated" form which works on all compilers (e.g. using ufcs). If a change to the standard library breaks an excessive amount of code in the ecosystem, though, then we'd need to take the steps much more purposefully.
Sounds good. Again, I don’t expect anything to change here and only made the previous comment to let people know this happened. I made this particular crate as an experiment, I don’t know of anyone actually using it.
Given that the core changes to the bounds on existing methods were instantly stable, it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep and as unstable. I propose we immediately stabilize these APIs. fcp merge
Team member has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams: [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] No concerns currently listed. Once these reviewers reach consensus, this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
ping (checkbox)
:bell: This is now entering its final comment period, as per the . :bell:
The final comment period is now complete.
What’s the next step here? Batch stabilization PR near the end of the release cycle?
Yep, I'm preparing one right now.

Related discussion:
text: ## `Cell<T>` <del> [`Cell<T>`][cell] is a type that provides zero-cost interior mutability, but only for `Copy` types. </del> <ins> [`Cell<T>`][cell] is a type that provides zero-cost interior mutability by moving data in and out of the cell. </ins> Since the compiler knows that all the data owned by the contained value is on the stack, there's no worry of leaking any data behind references (or worse!) by simply replacing the data.
Code change:
broke a library of mine where I had code like this: calls that used to call this trait method now call the new inherent method, but since that’s unstable the crate didn’t build until I . After that I could remove the trait since the new method has the same behavior. Anyway, this is just FYI. If we don’t want this kind of breakage we can’t add any new method to existing types ever, so that doesn’t sound viable. If the new method had had different behavior or if I wanted to keep supporting older compilers, it wouldn’t be too hard to rename my trait’s method or use UFCS.
Yeah in general we reserve the right to break downstream code with differences in method resolution because the downstream code can always be written in an "elaborated" form which works on all compilers (e.g. using ufcs). If a change to the standard library breaks an excessive amount of code in the ecosystem, though, then we'd need to take the steps much more purposefully.
Sounds good. Again, I don’t expect anything to change here and only made the previous comment to let people know this happened. I made this particular crate as an experiment, I don’t know of anyone actually using it.
Given that the core changes to the bounds on existing methods were instantly stable, it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep and as unstable. I propose we immediately stabilize these APIs. fcp merge
Team member has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams: [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] No concerns currently listed. Once these reviewers reach consensus, this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
ping (checkbox)
:bell: This is now entering its final comment period, as per the . :bell:
The final comment period is now complete.
What’s the next step here? Batch stabilization PR near the end of the release cycle?
Yep, I'm preparing one right now.

Related discussion:
text: unnecessary. However, this also relaxes the guarantees that the restriction provides; so if your invariants depend on data stored within `Cell`, you should be careful. <del> This is useful for mutating primitives and other `Copy` types when there is no easy way of </del> <ins> This is useful for mutating primitives and other types when there is no easy way of </ins> doing it in line with the static rules of `&` and `&mut`. `Cell` does not let you obtain interior references to the data, which makes it safe to freely
Code change:
broke a library of mine where I had code like this: calls that used to call this trait method now call the new inherent method, but since that’s unstable the crate didn’t build until I . After that I could remove the trait since the new method has the same behavior. Anyway, this is just FYI. If we don’t want this kind of breakage we can’t add any new method to existing types ever, so that doesn’t sound viable. If the new method had had different behavior or if I wanted to keep supporting older compilers, it wouldn’t be too hard to rename my trait’s method or use UFCS.
Yeah in general we reserve the right to break downstream code with differences in method resolution because the downstream code can always be written in an "elaborated" form which works on all compilers (e.g. using ufcs). If a change to the standard library breaks an excessive amount of code in the ecosystem, though, then we'd need to take the steps much more purposefully.
Sounds good. Again, I don’t expect anything to change here and only made the previous comment to let people know this happened. I made this particular crate as an experiment, I don’t know of anyone actually using it.
Given that the core changes to the bounds on existing methods were instantly stable, it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep and as unstable. I propose we immediately stabilize these APIs. fcp merge
Team member has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams: [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] No concerns currently listed. Once these reviewers reach consensus, this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
ping (checkbox)
:bell: This is now entering its final comment period, as per the . :bell:
The final comment period is now complete.
What’s the next step here? Batch stabilization PR near the end of the release cycle?
Yep, I'm preparing one right now.

Related discussion:
text: #### Cost <del> There is no runtime cost to using `Cell<T>`, however if you are using it to wrap larger (`Copy`) </del> <ins> There is no runtime cost to using `Cell<T>`, however if you are using it to wrap larger </ins> structs, it might be worthwhile to instead wrap individual fields in `Cell<T>` since each write is otherwise a full copy of the struct. ## `RefCell<T>` <del> [`RefCell<T>`][refcell] also provides interior mutability, but isn't restricted to `Copy` types. </del> <ins> [`RefCell<T>`][refcell] also provides interior mutability, but doesn't move data in and out of the cell. </ins> <del> Instead, it has a runtime cost. `RefCell<T>` enforces the read-write lock pattern at runtime (it's </del> <ins> However, it has a runtime cost. `RefCell<T>` enforces the read-write lock pattern at runtime (it's </ins> like a single-threaded mutex), unlike `&T`/`&mut T` which do so at compile time. This is done by the `borrow()` and `borrow_mut()` functions, which modify an internal reference count and return smart pointers which can be dereferenced immutably and mutably respectively. The refcount is restored when
Code change:
broke a library of mine where I had code like this: calls that used to call this trait method now call the new inherent method, but since that’s unstable the crate didn’t build until I . After that I could remove the trait since the new method has the same behavior. Anyway, this is just FYI. If we don’t want this kind of breakage we can’t add any new method to existing types ever, so that doesn’t sound viable. If the new method had had different behavior or if I wanted to keep supporting older compilers, it wouldn’t be too hard to rename my trait’s method or use UFCS.
Yeah in general we reserve the right to break downstream code with differences in method resolution because the downstream code can always be written in an "elaborated" form which works on all compilers (e.g. using ufcs). If a change to the standard library breaks an excessive amount of code in the ecosystem, though, then we'd need to take the steps much more purposefully.
Sounds good. Again, I don’t expect anything to change here and only made the previous comment to let people know this happened. I made this particular crate as an experiment, I don’t know of anyone actually using it.
Given that the core changes to the bounds on existing methods were instantly stable, it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep and as unstable. I propose we immediately stabilize these APIs. fcp merge
Team member has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams: [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] No concerns currently listed. Once these reviewers reach consensus, this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
ping (checkbox)
:bell: This is now entering its final comment period, as per the . :bell:
The final comment period is now complete.
What’s the next step here? Batch stabilization PR near the end of the release cycle?
Yep, I'm preparing one right now.

Related discussion:
text: use cmp::Ordering; use fmt::{self, Debug, Display}; use marker::Unsize; <ins> use mem; </ins> use ops::{Deref, DerefMut, CoerceUnsized}; <del> /// A mutable memory location that admits only `Copy` data. </del> <ins> /// A mutable memory location. </ins> /// /// See the [module-level documentation](index.html) for more. #[stable(feature = "rust1", since = "1.0.0")]