Rollup of 5 pull requests #103671

matthiaskrgr · 2022-10-28T05:06:44Z

Successful merges:

Add tests for static async functions in traits #102642 (Add tests for static async functions in traits)
Add suggestions for unsafe impl error codes #103283 (Add suggestions for unsafe impl error codes)
Fix unwanted merge of inline doc comments for impl blocks #103523 (Fix unwanted merge of inline doc comments for impl blocks)
diagnostics: do not suggest static candidates as traits to import #103550 (diagnostics: do not suggest static candidates as traits to import)
Don't carry MIR location in ConstraintCategory::CallArgument #103641 (Don't carry MIR location in ConstraintCategory::CallArgument)

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

If it's a static candidate, then it's already implemented. Do not suggest it a second time for implementing.

This reverts commit a6b5f95.

This patch adds test cases for AFIT, the majority of which are currently expected to run as `check-fail`.

Co-authored-by: Michael Goulet <[email protected]>

- Add comment to some tests that will break when rust-lang#102745 is implemented - Mark a test with known-bug - Delete duplicate test

…errors Add tests for static async functions in traits This patch adds test cases for AFIT, the majority of which are currently expected to run as `check-fail`. --- Note: I grabbed the cases from https://hackmd.io/SwRcXCiWQV-WRJ4BYs53fA Also, I'm not sure if the `async-associated-types2` and `async-associated-types2-desugared` are correct, I modified them a bit from the examples in the HackMD.

…ns, r=cjgillot Add suggestions for unsafe impl error codes Adds suggestions for users to add `unsafe` to trait impls that should be `unsafe`, and remove `unsafe` from trait impls that do not require `unsafe` With the folllowing code: ```rust struct Foo {} struct Bar {} trait Safe {} unsafe trait Unsafe {} impl Safe for Foo {} // ok impl Unsafe for Foo {} // E0200 unsafe impl Safe for Bar {} // E0199 unsafe impl Unsafe for Bar {} // ok // omitted empty main fn ``` The current rustc output is: ``` error[E0199]: implementing the trait `Safe` is not unsafe --> e0200.rs:13:1 | 13 | unsafe impl Safe for Bar {} // E0199 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ error[E0200]: the trait `Unsafe` requires an `unsafe impl` declaration --> e0200.rs:11:1 | 11 | impl Unsafe for Foo {} // E0200 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ error: aborting due to 2 previous errors Some errors have detailed explanations: E0199, E0200. For more information about an error, try `rustc --explain E0199`. ``` With this PR, the future rustc output would be: ``` error[E0199]: implementing the trait `Safe` is not unsafe --> ../../temp/e0200.rs:13:1 | 13 | unsafe impl Safe for Bar {} // E0199 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | help: remove `unsafe` from this trait implementation | 13 - unsafe impl Safe for Bar {} // E0199 13 + impl Safe for Bar {} // E0199 | error[E0200]: the trait `Unsafe` requires an `unsafe impl` declaration --> ../../temp/e0200.rs:11:1 | 11 | impl Unsafe for Foo {} // E0200 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | = note: the trait `Unsafe` enforces invariants that the compiler can't check. Review the trait documentation and make sure this implementation upholds those invariants before adding the `unsafe` keyword help: add `unsafe` to this trait implementation | 11 | unsafe impl Unsafe for Foo {} // E0200 | ++++++ error: aborting due to 2 previous errors Some errors have detailed explanations: E0199, E0200. For more information about an error, try `rustc --explain E0199`. ``` ``@rustbot`` label +T-compiler +A-diagnostics +A-suggestion-diagnostics

…impl-block, r=notriddle Fix unwanted merge of inline doc comments for impl blocks Fixes rust-lang#102909. We need this merge mechanism for inlined items but it's completely unwanted for impl blocks (at least the doc comments are, not the other attributes) since we want to keep what `cfg()` is put on the `pub use` or other attributes. r? ``@notriddle``

…tic-candidates, r=wesleywiser diagnostics: do not suggest static candidates as traits to import If it's a static candidate, then it's already implemented. Do not suggest it a second time for implementing. Partial fix for rust-lang#102354

…gillot Don't carry MIR location in `ConstraintCategory::CallArgument` It turns out that `ConstraintCategory::CallArgument` cannot just carry a MIR location in it, since we may bubble them up to totally different MIR bodies. So instead, revert the commit a6b5f95, and instead just erase regions from the original `Option<Ty<'tcx>>` that it carried, so that it doesn't ICE with the changes in rust-lang#103220. Best reviewed in parts -- the first is just a revert, and the second is where the meaningful changes happen. Fixes rust-lang#103624

matthiaskrgr · 2022-10-28T05:06:58Z

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

bors · 2022-10-28T05:07:00Z

📌 Commit 84663ce has been approved by matthiaskrgr

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2022-10-28T09:41:49Z

⌛ Testing commit 84663ce with merge a9ef100...

bors · 2022-10-28T12:50:36Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: matthiaskrgr
Pushing a9ef100 to master...

rust-timer · 2022-10-28T12:52:05Z

📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:

PR#	Perf Build Sha
#103641	1f09266710d7a27fef22f4f26e9e3399a4bbdcce
#103550	b590acdbf672ea83df12dfa034b1e19d127a0f34
#103523	5c214e384a43287c9ccd5cd33d5c94ab59d94643
#103283	82007bb4b8ea81ec3808a2860c754faea74e9bcc
#102642	bcbe09375b293fb1d047a9878e4087c7c32b043b

previous master: 898f463c93

In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: @rust-timer build $SHA

rust-timer · 2022-10-28T14:11:05Z

Finished benchmarking commit (a9ef100): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean¹	range	count²
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 1.5%]	14
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.0%	[0.5%, 4.1%]	18
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.4%	[0.2%, 1.5%]	14

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

the arithmetic mean of the percent change ↩
number of relevant changes ↩

lqd · 2022-10-28T17:18:59Z

@rust-timer build 1f09266710d7a27fef22f4f26e9e3399a4bbdcce

rust-timer · 2022-10-28T17:19:02Z

Queued 1f09266710d7a27fef22f4f26e9e3399a4bbdcce with parent 898f463, future comparison URL.

rust-timer · 2022-10-29T00:04:57Z

Finished benchmarking commit (1f09266710d7a27fef22f4f26e9e3399a4bbdcce): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.8%	[1.4%, 2.4%]	6
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

lqd · 2022-10-29T10:02:11Z

I think #103641 affected deeply-nested-multi, while keccak, cranelift-codegen, wg-grammar may currently be noisy, starting with this PR.

The diagnostics changes #103550 may be involved in perturbing codegen for typeck, impacting these benchmarks. There's nothing else in this PR anyway, so let's see if something shows up on the few remaining benchmarks.

@rust-timer build b590acdbf672ea83df12dfa034b1e19d127a0f34

rylev · 2022-11-02T14:09:50Z

@rust-timer build b590acdbf672ea83df12dfa034b1e19d127a0f34

rust-timer · 2022-11-02T14:09:53Z

Queued b590acdbf672ea83df12dfa034b1e19d127a0f34 with parent 898f463, future comparison URL.

rust-timer · 2022-11-02T15:28:40Z

Finished benchmarking commit (b590acdbf672ea83df12dfa034b1e19d127a0f34): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

nbarrios1337 and others added 18 commits October 20, 2022 20:08

Add fix suggestions for E0199, E0200, and E0569

770538e

Don't merge inline doc comments for impl blocks

641bf08

Add regression test for inlined doc comment on impl block

a4279a1

diagnostics: do not suggest static candidates as traits to import

b205a5a

If it's a static candidate, then it's already implemented. Do not suggest it a second time for implementing.

diagnostics: add test case for issue 102354

8cf9ad6

Revert "Make ClosureOutlivesRequirement not rely on an unresolved type"

dce44fa

This reverts commit a6b5f95.

Erase regions from CallArgument, add test + bless

4e0c27b

Add tests for static async functions in traits

97423d3

This patch adds test cases for AFIT, the majority of which are currently expected to run as `check-fail`.

Update static AFIT tests based on feedback

8a0ebca

Update tests based on feedback

11b1439

Add additional tests for static AFIT

9a05081

Update src/test/ui/async-await/in-trait/async-example.rs

0b3b046

Co-authored-by: Michael Goulet <[email protected]>

Update tests based on feedback

bfdefdb

- Add comment to some tests that will break when rust-lang#102745 is implemented - Mark a test with known-bug - Delete duplicate test

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Oct 28, 2022

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Oct 28, 2022

bors merged commit a9ef100 into rust-lang:master Oct 28, 2022

rustbot added this to the 1.66.0 milestone Oct 28, 2022

bors mentioned this pull request Oct 28, 2022

Remove #![allow(rustc::potential_query_instability)] from rustc_infer #103218

Merged

rustbot added the perf-regression Performance regression. label Oct 28, 2022

rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Oct 29, 2022

rustbot removed the perf-regression Performance regression. label Nov 2, 2022

matthiaskrgr deleted the rollup-iuugpep branch December 22, 2022 10:46

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Rollup of 5 pull requests #103671

Rollup of 5 pull requests #103671

matthiaskrgr commented Oct 28, 2022

matthiaskrgr commented Oct 28, 2022

bors commented Oct 28, 2022

bors commented Oct 28, 2022

bors commented Oct 28, 2022

rust-timer commented Oct 28, 2022

rust-timer commented Oct 28, 2022

lqd commented Oct 28, 2022

rust-timer commented Oct 28, 2022

rust-timer commented Oct 29, 2022

lqd commented Oct 29, 2022

rylev commented Nov 2, 2022

rust-timer commented Nov 2, 2022

rust-timer commented Nov 2, 2022

Rollup of 5 pull requests #103671

Rollup of 5 pull requests #103671

Conversation

matthiaskrgr commented Oct 28, 2022

matthiaskrgr commented Oct 28, 2022

bors commented Oct 28, 2022

bors commented Oct 28, 2022

bors commented Oct 28, 2022

rust-timer commented Oct 28, 2022

rust-timer commented Oct 28, 2022

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

Footnotes

lqd commented Oct 28, 2022

rust-timer commented Oct 28, 2022

rust-timer commented Oct 29, 2022

Overall result: ❌ regressions - ACTION NEEDED

lqd commented Oct 29, 2022

rylev commented Nov 2, 2022

rust-timer commented Nov 2, 2022

rust-timer commented Nov 2, 2022

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed