jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
<!-- 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. If you cannot produce a minimal reproduction case (something that would work in isolation), please provide the steps or even link to a repository that causes the problematic output to occur. --should suggest if the argument is a closure instead of suggesting to call the closure Given the following code: <!-- Please provide a link to -- The current output is: <!-- The following is not always necessary. --Ideally the output should look like: <!-- If the problem is not self-explanatory, please provide a rationale for the change. --<!-- If dramatically different output is caused by small changes, consider also adding them here. 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. The output might also be different depending on the Edition. --<!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
claim
This probably can be generalized if the code is written carefully enough.
Do you mean, we should handle other types like which may use with a closure?
I know nothing about the internals of rustc diagnostics but a general way would be to check if a similar method in name accepts a closure and suggest that first, if nothing similar can be found then suggest calling the closure
I mean something more like what is suggesting, where you check if exists whose signature is compatible with a closure. But that requires doing a method probe, then doing some delicate logic to check argument compatibility.

Related discussion:
text: } /// When encountering an fn-like type, try accessing the output of the type <del> /// // and suggesting calling it if it satisfies a predicate (i.e. if the </del> <ins> /// and suggesting calling it if it satisfies a predicate (i.e. if the </ins> /// output has a method or a field): /// ```compile_fail,E0308 /// fn foo(x: usize) -> usize { x }
Code change:
<!-- 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. If you cannot produce a minimal reproduction case (something that would work in isolation), please provide the steps or even link to a repository that causes the problematic output to occur. --should suggest if the argument is a closure instead of suggesting to call the closure Given the following code: <!-- Please provide a link to -- The current output is: <!-- The following is not always necessary. --Ideally the output should look like: <!-- If the problem is not self-explanatory, please provide a rationale for the change. --<!-- If dramatically different output is caused by small changes, consider also adding them here. 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. The output might also be different depending on the Edition. --<!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
claim
This probably can be generalized if the code is written carefully enough.
Do you mean, we should handle other types like which may use with a closure?
I know nothing about the internals of rustc diagnostics but a general way would be to check if a similar method in name accepts a closure and suggest that first, if nothing similar can be found then suggest calling the closure
I mean something more like what is suggesting, where you check if exists whose signature is compatible with a closure. But that requires doing a method probe, then doing some delicate logic to check argument compatibility.

Related discussion:
text: } else { err.span_suggestion(sp, &msg, suggestion, applicability); } <ins> } else if self.suggest_else_fn_with_closure(err, expr, found, expected) { </ins> } else if self.suggest_fn_call(err, expr, found, |output| self.can_coerce(output, expected)) && let ty::FnDef(def_id, ..) = &found.kind() && let Some(sp) = self.tcx.hir().span_if_local(*def_id)
Code change:
<!-- 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. If you cannot produce a minimal reproduction case (something that would work in isolation), please provide the steps or even link to a repository that causes the problematic output to occur. --should suggest if the argument is a closure instead of suggesting to call the closure Given the following code: <!-- Please provide a link to -- The current output is: <!-- The following is not always necessary. --Ideally the output should look like: <!-- If the problem is not self-explanatory, please provide a rationale for the change. --<!-- If dramatically different output is caused by small changes, consider also adding them here. 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. The output might also be different depending on the Edition. --<!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
claim
This probably can be generalized if the code is written carefully enough.
Do you mean, we should handle other types like which may use with a closure?
I know nothing about the internals of rustc diagnostics but a general way would be to check if a similar method in name accepts a closure and suggest that first, if nothing similar can be found then suggest calling the closure
I mean something more like what is suggesting, where you check if exists whose signature is compatible with a closure. But that requires doing a method probe, then doing some delicate logic to check argument compatibility.

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // run-rustfix fn main() { let x = "com.example.app"; let y: Option<&str> = None; let _s = y.unwrap_or_else(|| x.split('.').nth(1).unwrap()); //~^ ERROR: mismatched types [E0308] } </ins>
Code change:
<!-- 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. If you cannot produce a minimal reproduction case (something that would work in isolation), please provide the steps or even link to a repository that causes the problematic output to occur. --should suggest if the argument is a closure instead of suggesting to call the closure Given the following code: <!-- Please provide a link to -- The current output is: <!-- The following is not always necessary. --Ideally the output should look like: <!-- If the problem is not self-explanatory, please provide a rationale for the change. --<!-- If dramatically different output is caused by small changes, consider also adding them here. 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. The output might also be different depending on the Edition. --<!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
claim
This probably can be generalized if the code is written carefully enough.
Do you mean, we should handle other types like which may use with a closure?
I know nothing about the internals of rustc diagnostics but a general way would be to check if a similar method in name accepts a closure and suggest that first, if nothing similar can be found then suggest calling the closure
I mean something more like what is suggesting, where you check if exists whose signature is compatible with a closure. But that requires doing a method probe, then doing some delicate logic to check argument compatibility.

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // run-rustfix fn main() { let x = "com.example.app"; let y: Option<&str> = None; let _s = y.unwrap_or(|| x.split('.').nth(1).unwrap()); //~^ ERROR: mismatched types [E0308] } </ins>
Code change:
<!-- 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. If you cannot produce a minimal reproduction case (something that would work in isolation), please provide the steps or even link to a repository that causes the problematic output to occur. --should suggest if the argument is a closure instead of suggesting to call the closure Given the following code: <!-- Please provide a link to -- The current output is: <!-- The following is not always necessary. --Ideally the output should look like: <!-- If the problem is not self-explanatory, please provide a rationale for the change. --<!-- If dramatically different output is caused by small changes, consider also adding them here. 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. The output might also be different depending on the Edition. --<!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
claim
This probably can be generalized if the code is written carefully enough.
Do you mean, we should handle other types like which may use with a closure?
I know nothing about the internals of rustc diagnostics but a general way would be to check if a similar method in name accepts a closure and suggest that first, if nothing similar can be found then suggest calling the closure
I mean something more like what is suggesting, where you check if exists whose signature is compatible with a closure. But that requires doing a method probe, then doing some delicate logic to check argument compatibility.

Related discussion:
text: <ins> error[E0308]: mismatched types --> $DIR/sugg-else-for-closure.rs:6:26 | LL |     let _s = y.unwrap_or(|| x.split('.').nth(1).unwrap()); |                --------- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `&str`, found closure |                | |                arguments to this function are incorrect | = note: expected reference `&str` found closure `[closure@$DIR/sugg-else-for-closure.rs:6:26: 6:28]` note: associated function defined here --> $SRC_DIR/core/src/option.rs:LL:COL | LL |     pub const fn unwrap_or(self, default: T) -> T |                  ^^^^^^^^^ help: try calling `unwrap_or_else` instead | LL |     let _s = y.unwrap_or_else(|| x.split('.').nth(1).unwrap()); |                         +++++ error: aborting due to previous error For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0308`. </ins>
Code change:
Since the nightly 2022-09-11, the following code doesn't compile anymore. <!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- 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<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
Minimized it a little
searched nightlies: from nightly-2022-01-01 to nightly-2022-09-30 regressed nightly: nightly-2022-09-11 searched commit range: regressed commit: <details<summarybisected with <a href=''cargo-bisect-rustc</av0.6.4</summaryHost triple: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Reproduce with: </details
cc
cc
I get the same ICE when using the current nightly in a complex Codebase. The works fine.
I think I minimized this to:

Related discussion:
text: span: Span, origin: &hir::OpaqueTyOrigin, ) { <del> let hidden_type = tcx.bound_type_of(def_id.to_def_id()).subst(tcx, substs); </del> let hir_id = tcx.hir().local_def_id_to_hir_id(def_id); let defining_use_anchor = match *origin { hir::OpaqueTyOrigin::FnReturn(did) | hir::OpaqueTyOrigin::AsyncFn(did) => did,
Code change:
Since the nightly 2022-09-11, the following code doesn't compile anymore. <!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- 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<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
Minimized it a little
searched nightlies: from nightly-2022-01-01 to nightly-2022-09-30 regressed nightly: nightly-2022-09-11 searched commit range: regressed commit: <details<summarybisected with <a href=''cargo-bisect-rustc</av0.6.4</summaryHost triple: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Reproduce with: </details
cc
cc
I get the same ICE when using the current nightly in a complex Codebase. The works fine.
I think I minimized this to:

Related discussion:
text: let ocx = ObligationCtxt::new(&infcx); let opaque_ty = tcx.mk_opaque(def_id.to_def_id(), substs); <ins> // `ReErased` regions appear in the "parent_substs" of closures/generators. // We're ignoring them here and replacing them with fresh region variables. // See tests in ui/type-alias-impl-trait/closure_{parent_substs,wf_outlives}.rs. // // FIXME: Consider wrapping the hidden type in an existential `Binder` and instantiating it // here rather than using ReErased. let hidden_ty = tcx.bound_type_of(def_id.to_def_id()).subst(tcx, substs); let hidden_ty = tcx.fold_regions(hidden_ty, |re, _dbi| match re.kind() { ty::ReErased => infcx.next_region_var(RegionVariableOrigin::MiscVariable(span)), _ => re, }); </ins> let misc_cause = traits::ObligationCause::misc(span, hir_id); <del> match infcx.at(&misc_cause, param_env).eq(opaque_ty, hidden_type) { </del> <ins> match infcx.at(&misc_cause, param_env).eq(opaque_ty, hidden_ty) { </ins> Ok(infer_ok) => ocx.register_infer_ok_obligations(infer_ok), Err(ty_err) => { tcx.sess.delay_span_bug( span, <del> &format!("could not unify `{hidden_type}` with revealed type:n{ty_err}"), </del> <ins> &format!("could not unify `{hidden_ty}` with revealed type:n{ty_err}"), </ins> ); } }
Code change:
Since the nightly 2022-09-11, the following code doesn't compile anymore. <!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- 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<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
Minimized it a little
searched nightlies: from nightly-2022-01-01 to nightly-2022-09-30 regressed nightly: nightly-2022-09-11 searched commit range: regressed commit: <details<summarybisected with <a href=''cargo-bisect-rustc</av0.6.4</summaryHost triple: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Reproduce with: </details
cc
cc
I get the same ICE when using the current nightly in a complex Codebase. The works fine.
I think I minimized this to:

Related discussion:
text: // Defining use functions may have more bounds than the opaque type, which is ok, as long as the // hidden type is well formed even without those bounds. let predicate = <del> ty::Binder::dummy(ty::PredicateKind::WellFormed(hidden_type.into())).to_predicate(tcx); </del> <ins> ty::Binder::dummy(ty::PredicateKind::WellFormed(hidden_ty.into())).to_predicate(tcx); </ins> ocx.register_obligation(Obligation::new(misc_cause, param_env, predicate)); // Check that all obligations are satisfied by the implementation's
Code change:
Since the nightly 2022-09-11, the following code doesn't compile anymore. <!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- 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<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
Minimized it a little
searched nightlies: from nightly-2022-01-01 to nightly-2022-09-30 regressed nightly: nightly-2022-09-11 searched commit range: regressed commit: <details<summarybisected with <a href=''cargo-bisect-rustc</av0.6.4</summaryHost triple: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Reproduce with: </details
cc
cc
I get the same ICE when using the current nightly in a complex Codebase. The works fine.
I think I minimized this to:

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // When WF checking the hidden type in the ParamEnv of the opaque type, // one complication arises when the hidden type is a closure/generator: // the "parent_substs" of the type may reference lifetime parameters // not present in the opaque type. // These region parameters are not really useful in this check. // So here we ignore them and replace them with fresh region variables. // check-pass #![feature(type_alias_impl_trait)] #![allow(dead_code)] // Basic test mod test1 { // Hidden type = Closure['_#0r] type Opaque = impl Sized; fn define<'a: 'a>() -> Opaque { || {} } } // the region vars cannot both be equal to `'static` or `'empty` mod test2 { trait Trait {} // Hidden type = Closure['a, '_#0r, '_#1r] // Constraints = [('_#0r: 'a), ('a: '_#1r)] type Opaque<'a> where &'a (): Trait, = impl Sized + 'a; fn define<'a, 'x, 'y>() -> Opaque<'a> where &'a (): Trait, 'x: 'a, 'a: 'y, { || {} } } // the region var cannot be equal to `'a` or `'b` mod test3 { trait Trait {} // Hidden type = Closure['a, 'b, '_#0r] // Constraints = [('_#0r: 'a), ('_#0r: 'b)] type Opaque<'a, 'b> where (&'a (), &'b ()): Trait, = impl Sized + 'a + 'b; fn define<'a, 'b, 'x>() -> Opaque<'a, 'b> where (&'a (), &'b ()): Trait, 'x: 'a, 'x: 'b, { || {} } } fn main() {} </ins>
Code change:
Since the nightly 2022-09-11, the following code doesn't compile anymore. <!-- Thank you for finding an Internal Compiler Error! If possible, try to provide a minimal verifiable example. You can read "Rust Bug Minimization Patterns" for how to create smaller examples. --<!-- 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<summary<strongBacktrace</strong</summary<p</p</details
Minimized it a little
searched nightlies: from nightly-2022-01-01 to nightly-2022-09-30 regressed nightly: nightly-2022-09-11 searched commit range: regressed commit: <details<summarybisected with <a href=''cargo-bisect-rustc</av0.6.4</summaryHost triple: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Reproduce with: </details
cc
cc
I get the same ICE when using the current nightly in a complex Codebase. The works fine.
I think I minimized this to:

Related discussion:
text: <ins> // If the hidden type is a closure, we require the "outlives" bounds that appear on the // defining site to also appear on the opaque type. // // It's not clear if this is the desired behavior but at least // it's consistent and has no back-compat risk. // check-fail #![feature(type_alias_impl_trait)] #![allow(dead_code)] // requires `'a: 'b` bound mod test1 { type Opaque<'a, 'b> = impl Sized + 'a + 'b; //~^ ERROR lifetime bound not satisfied fn define<'a, 'b>() -> Opaque<'a, 'b> where 'a: 'b, { || {} } } // Same as the above but through indirection `'x` mod test2 { type Opaque<'a, 'b> = impl Sized + 'a + 'b; //~^ ERROR cannot infer an appropriate lifetime fn define<'a, 'b, 'x>() -> Opaque<'a, 'b> where 'a: 'x, 'x: 'b, { || {} } } // fixed version of the above mod test2_fixed { type Opaque<'a: 'b, 'b> = impl Sized + 'a + 'b; fn define<'a, 'b, 'x>() -> Opaque<'a, 'b> where 'a: 'x, 'x: 'b, { || {} } } // requires `T: 'static` mod test3 { type Opaque<T> = impl Sized; //~^ ERROR the parameter type `T` may not live long enough fn define<T>() -> Opaque<T> where T: 'static, { || {} } } fn main() {} </ins>
Code change:
While working on an experimental runtime and using a couple of experimental features I found that the compiler while in resolving the async call on a trait crash badly. This is a minimal reproducible example and this is the stacktrace generated N.B: I guess this happens with any runtime? BTW also if happens only with rio the compiler should not crash, but I do not think this is related to a specific runtime, but I guess instead, the runtime triggers the resolution of the futures <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
label +A-async-await +T-compiler
In the meanwhile, I will try to swim inside the codebase to catch the problem! claim
this is fixed by .
Minimized so it doesn't depend on rio:
Cool great work :)

Related discussion:
text: let ocx = ObligationCtxt::new(infcx); let norm_cause = ObligationCause::misc(return_span, impl_m_hir_id); <del> let impl_return_ty = ocx.normalize( </del> <ins> let impl_sig = ocx.normalize( </ins> norm_cause.clone(), param_env, <del> infcx .replace_bound_vars_with_fresh_vars( return_span, infer::HigherRankedType, tcx.fn_sig(impl_m.def_id), ) .output(), </del> <ins> infcx.replace_bound_vars_with_fresh_vars( return_span, infer::HigherRankedType, tcx.fn_sig(impl_m.def_id), ), </ins> ); <ins> let impl_return_ty = impl_sig.output(); </ins> let mut collector = ImplTraitInTraitCollector::new(&ocx, return_span, param_env, impl_m_hir_id); <del> let unnormalized_trait_return_ty = tcx </del> <ins> let unnormalized_trait_sig = tcx </ins> .liberate_late_bound_regions( impl_m.def_id, tcx.bound_fn_sig(trait_m.def_id).subst(tcx, trait_to_placeholder_substs), ) <del> .output() </del> .fold_with(&mut collector); <del> let trait_return_ty = ocx.normalize(norm_cause.clone(), param_env, unnormalized_trait_return_ty); </del> <ins> let trait_sig = ocx.normalize(norm_cause.clone(), param_env, unnormalized_trait_sig); let trait_return_ty = trait_sig.output(); </ins> <del> let wf_tys = FxHashSet::from_iter([unnormalized_trait_return_ty, trait_return_ty]); </del> <ins> let wf_tys = FxHashSet::from_iter( unnormalized_trait_sig.inputs_and_output.iter().chain(trait_sig.inputs_and_output.iter()), ); </ins> match infcx.at(&cause, param_env).eq(trait_return_ty, impl_return_ty) { Ok(infer::InferOk { value: (), obligations }) => {
Code change:
While working on an experimental runtime and using a couple of experimental features I found that the compiler while in resolving the async call on a trait crash badly. This is a minimal reproducible example and this is the stacktrace generated N.B: I guess this happens with any runtime? BTW also if happens only with rio the compiler should not crash, but I do not think this is related to a specific runtime, but I guess instead, the runtime triggers the resolution of the futures <!-- TRIAGEBOTSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNSTART --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATASTARTTRIAGEBOTASSIGNDATAEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTASSIGNEND --<!-- TRIAGEBOTEND --
label +A-async-await +T-compiler
In the meanwhile, I will try to swim inside the codebase to catch the problem! claim
this is fixed by .
Minimized so it doesn't depend on rio:
Cool great work :)

Related discussion:
text: } } <ins> // Unify the whole function signature. We need to do this to fully infer // the lifetimes of the return type, but do this after unifying just the // return types, since we want to avoid duplicating errors from // `compare_predicate_entailment`. match infcx .at(&cause, param_env) .eq(tcx.mk_fn_ptr(ty::Binder::dummy(trait_sig)), tcx.mk_fn_ptr(ty::Binder::dummy(impl_sig))) { Ok(infer::InferOk { value: (), obligations }) => { ocx.register_obligations(obligations); } Err(terr) => { let guar = tcx.sess.delay_span_bug( return_span, format!("could not unify `{trait_sig}` and `{impl_sig}`: {terr:?}"), ); return Err(guar); } } </ins> // Check that all obligations are satisfied by the implementation's // RPITs. let errors = ocx.select_all_or_error();