Skip to content

Conversation

amandasystems
Copy link
Contributor

@amandasystems amandasystems commented Jun 17, 2025

This PR breaks out yet another part of #130227. It prepares for the removal of precise placeholder tracking by colocating detecting placeholder errors for higher-ranked relations (placeholders outliving existentials that can't name them, other placeholders) with the preprocessing step that adds outlives-static constraints. This also relieves that step from the burden of ensuring these errors are detected via propagation, and fully splits the logic into one part that rewrites the constraint graph to add edges to 'static and one that detects hard errors.

For stepping-on-toes reasons it is currently based on #140737, but can be rebased on regular master and merged separately nope that's a terrible idea actually, it relies on some of the tracking introduced there.

This step also makes region errors more fine-grained, which is useful to simplify the error reporting pipeline, which is currently based on a very brittle method of reconstructing an error event after the fact to figure out what went wrong. Doing that is left as future work, though.

This changes the logic of error reporting slightly to not emit errors for placeholder/higher kinded constraints if there are other borrowck errors. This somewhat lessens the flood of errors and was described as if anything an improvement by @nikomatsakis in informal review.

r? lcnr

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jun 17, 2025
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@amandasystems
Copy link
Contributor Author

Wow, a merge conflict with upstream for a commit I JUST PUSHED, that's record time!

@amandasystems amandasystems force-pushed the early-placeholder-errors branch 2 times, most recently from fd18095 to 199f961 Compare June 17, 2025 15:11
@amandasystems amandasystems changed the title [WIP] Move placeholder error handling to before region inference Move placeholder error handling to before region inference Jun 25, 2025
@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented Jul 3, 2025

@rustbot blocked

@rustbot rustbot added S-blocked Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 3, 2025
@amandasystems amandasystems force-pushed the early-placeholder-errors branch from 199f961 to 3a46042 Compare August 27, 2025 11:03
@rustbot

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@amandasystems amandasystems force-pushed the early-placeholder-errors branch from 3a46042 to 9b555d3 Compare August 27, 2025 19:44
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Aug 27, 2025

This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@amandasystems amandasystems force-pushed the early-placeholder-errors branch from 9b555d3 to f31393f Compare August 27, 2025 20:01
@amandasystems
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rustbot ready

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-blocked Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. labels Aug 27, 2025
Comment on lines -26 to +25
= note: `Getter<'1>` would have to be implemented for the type `GetterImpl<'0, ConstructableImpl<'_>>`, for any two lifetimes `'0` and `'1`...
= note: `Getter<'_>` would have to be implemented for the type `GetterImpl<'0, ConstructableImpl<'1>>`, for any two lifetimes `'0` and `'1`...
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I hate this, but can't find a way around it. My gut feeling says it's another case of an order-dependent extraction procedure somewhere. For what it's worth, it wasn't in the earlier version of this code but it seems to have appeared after the recent changes to the base commit. Presumably the difference is from selecting smallest placeholder by rvid, etc. Help very much appreciated!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants