Avoid invalid suggestion in case of macro expansion without inferrable generic type - #161587
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Some changes occurred in need_type_info.rs cc @lcnr |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Collaborator
|
rustbot has assigned @ShoyuVanilla. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Collaborator
|
This PR was rebased onto a different main 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. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Contributor
Author
|
@bors reroll |
Contributor
|
Unknown command "reroll". Run |
Contributor
Author
|
@rustbot reroll |
ShoyuVanilla
approved these changes
Sep 9, 2026
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry for the delay, I have been reviewing this 😅
Looks good to me. Thanks!
@bors r+ rollup
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
mu001999
added a commit
to mu001999/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 9, 2026
Avoid invalid suggestion in case of macro expansion without inferrable generic type Closes rust-lang#129756 . The main challenge for me in this PR was figuring out how to pass down the information of the code being generated from expansion. I went for the simplest approach I could think of, but I questioned myself if the boolean should be placed inside the Visitor. I don't have enough information to figure this out, if it's badly placed I'd be happy to fix and learn! About the test, I split the two commits because we can see the issue being reproduced in the first commit but being fixed on the second. I also added a non-expansion example of the same code to show it won't get altered. Oh, also I didn't know the best place to place the test. I went for the place with same kind of errors, but I guess `proc-macros` could also be a place.
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 9, 2026
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - #162482 (Make `run-make` testsuite work with other codegen backend than LLVM) - #161587 (Avoid invalid suggestion in case of macro expansion without inferrable generic type) - #162363 (Use correct `dir_path` when parsing module from path) - #162408 (add crashtests [7/N]) - #162502 (triagebot: Subscribe me to amdgpu changes) - #162505 (Revert "fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia")
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 9, 2026
Rollup merge of #161587 - lsunsi:issue129756, r=ShoyuVanilla Avoid invalid suggestion in case of macro expansion without inferrable generic type Closes #129756 . The main challenge for me in this PR was figuring out how to pass down the information of the code being generated from expansion. I went for the simplest approach I could think of, but I questioned myself if the boolean should be placed inside the Visitor. I don't have enough information to figure this out, if it's badly placed I'd be happy to fix and learn! About the test, I split the two commits because we can see the issue being reproduced in the first commit but being fixed on the second. I also added a non-expansion example of the same code to show it won't get altered. Oh, also I didn't know the best place to place the test. I went for the place with same kind of errors, but I guess `proc-macros` could also be a place.
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
5 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.
Closes #129756 .
The main challenge for me in this PR was figuring out how to pass down the information of the code being generated from expansion. I went for the simplest approach I could think of, but I questioned myself if the boolean should be placed inside the Visitor. I don't have enough information to figure this out, if it's badly placed I'd be happy to fix and learn!
About the test, I split the two commits because we can see the issue being reproduced in the first commit but being fixed on the second. I also added a non-expansion example of the same code to show it won't get altered.
Oh, also I didn't know the best place to place the test. I went for the place with same kind of errors, but I guess
proc-macroscould also be a place.