review
This commit is contained in:
parent
8167a25e4e
commit
614760f612
@ -214,76 +214,69 @@ fn overlap<'tcx>(
|
||||
let mut obligations = equate_impl_headers(selcx.infcx, &impl1_header, &impl2_header)?;
|
||||
debug!("overlap: unification check succeeded");
|
||||
|
||||
if !overlap_mode.use_implicit_negative() {
|
||||
let impl_header = selcx.infcx.resolve_vars_if_possible(impl1_header);
|
||||
return Some(OverlapResult {
|
||||
impl_header,
|
||||
intercrate_ambiguity_causes: Default::default(),
|
||||
involves_placeholder: false,
|
||||
});
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
obligations.extend(
|
||||
[&impl1_header.predicates, &impl2_header.predicates].into_iter().flatten().map(
|
||||
|&predicate| Obligation::new(infcx.tcx, ObligationCause::dummy(), param_env, predicate),
|
||||
),
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
||||
for mode in [TreatInductiveCycleAs::Ambig, TreatInductiveCycleAs::Recur] {
|
||||
if let Some(failing_obligation) = selcx.with_treat_inductive_cycle_as(mode, |selcx| {
|
||||
impl_intersection_has_impossible_obligation(selcx, &obligations)
|
||||
}) {
|
||||
if matches!(mode, TreatInductiveCycleAs::Recur) {
|
||||
let first_local_impl = impl1_header
|
||||
.impl_def_id
|
||||
.as_local()
|
||||
.or(impl2_header.impl_def_id.as_local())
|
||||
.expect("expected one of the impls to be local");
|
||||
infcx.tcx.struct_span_lint_hir(
|
||||
COINDUCTIVE_OVERLAP_IN_COHERENCE,
|
||||
infcx.tcx.local_def_id_to_hir_id(first_local_impl),
|
||||
infcx.tcx.def_span(first_local_impl),
|
||||
format!(
|
||||
"implementations {} will conflict in the future",
|
||||
match impl1_header.trait_ref {
|
||||
Some(trait_ref) => {
|
||||
let trait_ref = infcx.resolve_vars_if_possible(trait_ref);
|
||||
format!(
|
||||
"of `{}` for `{}`",
|
||||
trait_ref.print_only_trait_path(),
|
||||
trait_ref.self_ty()
|
||||
)
|
||||
}
|
||||
None => format!(
|
||||
"for `{}`",
|
||||
infcx.resolve_vars_if_possible(impl1_header.self_ty)
|
||||
),
|
||||
if overlap_mode.use_implicit_negative() {
|
||||
for mode in [TreatInductiveCycleAs::Ambig, TreatInductiveCycleAs::Recur] {
|
||||
if let Some(failing_obligation) = selcx.with_treat_inductive_cycle_as(mode, |selcx| {
|
||||
impl_intersection_has_impossible_obligation(selcx, &obligations)
|
||||
}) {
|
||||
if matches!(mode, TreatInductiveCycleAs::Recur) {
|
||||
let first_local_impl = impl1_header
|
||||
.impl_def_id
|
||||
.as_local()
|
||||
.or(impl2_header.impl_def_id.as_local())
|
||||
.expect("expected one of the impls to be local");
|
||||
infcx.tcx.struct_span_lint_hir(
|
||||
COINDUCTIVE_OVERLAP_IN_COHERENCE,
|
||||
infcx.tcx.local_def_id_to_hir_id(first_local_impl),
|
||||
infcx.tcx.def_span(first_local_impl),
|
||||
format!(
|
||||
"implementations {} will conflict in the future",
|
||||
match impl1_header.trait_ref {
|
||||
Some(trait_ref) => {
|
||||
let trait_ref = infcx.resolve_vars_if_possible(trait_ref);
|
||||
format!(
|
||||
"of `{}` for `{}`",
|
||||
trait_ref.print_only_trait_path(),
|
||||
trait_ref.self_ty()
|
||||
)
|
||||
}
|
||||
None => format!(
|
||||
"for `{}`",
|
||||
infcx.resolve_vars_if_possible(impl1_header.self_ty)
|
||||
),
|
||||
},
|
||||
),
|
||||
|lint| {
|
||||
lint.note(
|
||||
"impls that are not considered to overlap may be considered to \
|
||||
overlap in the future",
|
||||
)
|
||||
.span_label(
|
||||
infcx.tcx.def_span(impl1_header.impl_def_id),
|
||||
"the first impl is here",
|
||||
)
|
||||
.span_label(
|
||||
infcx.tcx.def_span(impl2_header.impl_def_id),
|
||||
"the second impl is here",
|
||||
);
|
||||
lint.note(format!(
|
||||
"`{}` may be considered to hold in future releases, \
|
||||
causing the impls to overlap",
|
||||
infcx.resolve_vars_if_possible(failing_obligation.predicate)
|
||||
));
|
||||
lint
|
||||
},
|
||||
),
|
||||
|lint| {
|
||||
lint.note(
|
||||
"impls that are not considered to overlap may be considered to \
|
||||
overlap in the future",
|
||||
)
|
||||
.span_label(
|
||||
infcx.tcx.def_span(impl1_header.impl_def_id),
|
||||
"the first impl is here",
|
||||
)
|
||||
.span_label(
|
||||
infcx.tcx.def_span(impl2_header.impl_def_id),
|
||||
"the second impl is here",
|
||||
);
|
||||
lint.note(format!(
|
||||
"`{}` may be considered to hold in future releases, \
|
||||
causing the impls to overlap",
|
||||
infcx.resolve_vars_if_possible(failing_obligation.predicate)
|
||||
));
|
||||
lint
|
||||
},
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return None;
|
||||
return None;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -294,7 +287,9 @@ fn overlap<'tcx>(
|
||||
return None;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
let intercrate_ambiguity_causes = if infcx.next_trait_solver() {
|
||||
let intercrate_ambiguity_causes = if !overlap_mode.use_implicit_negative() {
|
||||
Default::default()
|
||||
} else if infcx.next_trait_solver() {
|
||||
compute_intercrate_ambiguity_causes(&infcx, &obligations)
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
selcx.take_intercrate_ambiguity_causes()
|
||||
@ -932,6 +927,8 @@ fn visit_goal(&mut self, goal: &InspectGoal<'_, 'tcx>) -> ControlFlow<Self::Brea
|
||||
|
||||
let Goal { param_env, predicate } = goal.goal();
|
||||
|
||||
// For bound predicates we simply call `infcx.replace_bound_vars_with_placeholders`
|
||||
// and then prove the resulting predicate as a nested goal.
|
||||
let trait_ref = match predicate.kind().no_bound_vars() {
|
||||
Some(ty::PredicateKind::Clause(ty::ClauseKind::Trait(tr))) => tr.trait_ref,
|
||||
Some(ty::PredicateKind::Clause(ty::ClauseKind::Projection(proj))) => {
|
||||
@ -942,21 +939,6 @@ fn visit_goal(&mut self, goal: &InspectGoal<'_, 'tcx>) -> ControlFlow<Self::Brea
|
||||
|
||||
let mut ambiguity_cause = None;
|
||||
for cand in goal.candidates() {
|
||||
match cand.result() {
|
||||
Ok(Certainty::Maybe(_)) => {}
|
||||
// We only add intercrate ambiguity causes if the goal would
|
||||
// otherwise result in an error.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// FIXME: this isn't quite right. Changing a goal from YES with
|
||||
// inference contraints to AMBIGUOUS can also cause a goal to not
|
||||
// fail.
|
||||
Ok(Certainty::Yes) => {
|
||||
ambiguity_cause = None;
|
||||
break;
|
||||
}
|
||||
Err(NoSolution) => continue,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// FIXME: boiiii, using string comparisions here sure is scuffed.
|
||||
if let inspect::ProbeKind::MiscCandidate { name: "coherence unknowable", result: _ } =
|
||||
cand.kind()
|
||||
@ -1011,6 +993,21 @@ fn visit_goal(&mut self, goal: &InspectGoal<'_, 'tcx>) -> ControlFlow<Self::Brea
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
})
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
match cand.result() {
|
||||
// We only add an ambiguity cause if the goal would otherwise
|
||||
// result in an error.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// FIXME: While this matches the behavior of the
|
||||
// old solver, it is not the only way in which the unknowable
|
||||
// candidates *weaken* coherence, they can also force otherwise
|
||||
// sucessful normalization to be ambiguous.
|
||||
Ok(Certainty::Maybe(_) | Certainty::Yes) => {
|
||||
ambiguity_cause = None;
|
||||
break;
|
||||
}
|
||||
Err(NoSolution) => continue,
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user