Semantic check of mut restrictions - #159906
Open
CoCo-Japan-pan wants to merge 20 commits into
Open
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Some changes occurred to MIR optimizations cc @rust-lang/wg-mir-opt |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
rustbot
added
the
T-rustdoc-frontend
CoCo-Japan-pan
changed the title
mut restrictions
Urgau
reviewed
Jul 25, 2026
Comment on lines
415
to
421
| // MIR-level lints. | ||
| &Lint(check_inline::CheckForceInline), | ||
| &Lint(check_call_recursion::CheckCallRecursion), | ||
| &Lint(check_packed_ref::CheckPackedRef), | ||
| &Lint(check_const_item_mutation::CheckConstItemMutation), | ||
| &Lint(check_mut_restriction::CheckMutRestriction), | ||
| &Lint(function_item_references::FunctionItemReferences), |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Not for this PR) Most of those so called "MIR lints" actually emit hard errors of an lint. We should find another name as it's quite confusing to see a "lint" emit a hard errors.
Comment on lines
+179
to
+205
| fn change_fooe(foo: &mut foo::bar::FooE) { | ||
| match foo { | ||
| foo::bar::FooE::Default => {} | ||
| foo::bar::FooE::Var { | ||
| alpha, //[e2015]~ ERROR field cannot be mutated outside `foo::bar` | ||
| //[e2018]~^ ERROR field cannot be mutated outside `crate::foo::bar` | ||
| beta, //[e2015]~ ERROR field cannot be mutated outside `foo` | ||
| //[e2018]~^ ERROR field cannot be mutated outside `crate::foo` | ||
| gamma, // ok | ||
| } => { | ||
| *alpha = 1; | ||
| *beta = 1; | ||
| *gamma = 1; | ||
| } | ||
| foo::bar::FooE::Tup( | ||
| alpha, //[e2015]~ ERROR field cannot be mutated outside `foo::bar` | ||
| //[e2018]~^ ERROR field cannot be mutated outside `crate::foo::bar` | ||
| beta, //[e2015]~ ERROR field cannot be mutated outside `foo` | ||
| //[e2018]~^ ERROR field cannot be mutated outside `crate::foo` | ||
| gamma, // ok | ||
| ) => { | ||
| *alpha = 1; | ||
| *beta = 1; | ||
| *gamma = 1; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Nadrieril, can you think of another match related tests we should be testing regarding mut-restrictions?
Urgau
added
S-waiting-on-author
Member
|
cc @cjgillot for the MIR related part since you know more about it than me |
Contributor
Author
|
@rustbot ready |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-author
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Urgau
reviewed
Jul 29, 2026
CoCo-Japan-pan
force-pushed
the
mut-restriction-check
branch
from
July 29, 2026 13:46
f99a126 to
673a9db
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
View all comments
This PR implements semantic checks for
mutrestrictions proposed in RFC 3323, as part of the related GSoC project.It lowers field restriction information from HIR into
rustc_middle::ty::FieldDefand adds a MIR-level lint that rejects restricted field mutations and struct expressions. As parsing (#156824) and path resolution (#159125) have already been implemented, this PR provides a working implementation ofmutrestrictions.Tracking issue: #105077
r? @Urgau
cc @jhpratt