-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
AST validation doesn't correctly deal with impls nested within associated functions #119924
Labels
A-associated-items
Area: Associated items (types, constants & functions)
C-bug
Category: This is a bug.
I-ICE
Issue: The compiler panicked, giving an Internal Compilation Error (ICE) ❄️
S-bug-has-test
Status: This bug is tracked inside the repo by a `known-bug` test.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Comments
fmease
added
A-associated-items
Area: Associated items (types, constants & functions)
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
C-bug
Category: This is a bug.
labels
Jan 13, 2024
rustbot
added
the
needs-triage
This issue may need triage. Remove it if it has been sufficiently triaged.
label
Jan 13, 2024
fmease
removed
the
needs-triage
This issue may need triage. Remove it if it has been sufficiently triaged.
label
Jan 13, 2024
bkchr
added a commit
to paritytech/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Jan 18, 2024
Apparently they changed detection for visibility identifiers on traits, which broke more than it should. There is an issue open: rust-lang/rust#119924 The easy solution for us is to move the declaration of the global variable outside of the trait. Closes: #2960
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
to paritytech/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Jan 18, 2024
Apparently they changed detection for visibility identifiers on traits, which broke more than it should. There is an issue open: rust-lang/rust#119924 The easy solution for us is to move the declaration of the global variable outside of the trait. Closes: #2960
Ah nice, I found another one reported by someone else ages ago while triaging |
Lol, no code path properly accounts for fn f(_: impl Trait<{
fn g(_: impl Sized) {} //~ ERROR nested `impl Trait` is not allowed
false
}>) {}
trait Trait<const B: bool> {} |
Fun, the following also gets rejected (not strictly AST validation but AST passes, namely struct Const<const N: u32>;
type T = Const<{
fn take(_: impl Sized) {}
0
}>;
|
pmikolajczyk41
pushed a commit
to Cardinal-Cryptography/polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Feb 21, 2024
Apparently they changed detection for visibility identifiers on traits, which broke more than it should. There is an issue open: rust-lang/rust#119924 The easy solution for us is to move the declaration of the global variable outside of the trait. Closes: paritytech#2960 (cherry picked from commit 0e124a0)
This was referenced Feb 24, 2024
GuillaumeGomez
added a commit
to GuillaumeGomez/rust
that referenced
this issue
Mar 7, 2024
…piler-errors AST validation: Improve handling of inherent impls nested within functions and anon consts Minimal fix for issue rust-lang#121607 extracted from PR rust-lang#120698 for ease of backporting and since I'd like to improve PR rust-lang#120698 in such a way that it makes AST validator truly robust against such sort of regressions (AST validator is generally *beyond* footgun-y atm). The current version of PR rust-lang#120698 sort of does that already but there's still room for improvement. Fixes rust-lang#89342. Fixes [after beta-backport] rust-lang#121607. Partially addresses rust-lang#119924 (rust-lang#120698 aims to fully fix it). --- ### Explainer The last commit of PR rust-lang#119505 regressed issue rust-lang#121607. Previously we would reject visibilities on associated items with `visibility_not_permitted` if we were in a trait (by checking the parameter `ctxt` of `visit_assoc_item` which was 100% accurate) or if we were in a trait impl (by checking a flag called `in_trait_impl` tracked in `AstValidator` which was/is only accurate if the visitor methods correctly updated it which isn't actually the case giving rise to the old open issue rust-lang#89342). In PR rust-lang#119505, I moved even more state into the `AstValidator` by generalizing the flag `in_trait_impl` to `trait_or_trait_impl` to be able to report more precise diagnostics (modeling *Trait | TraitImpl*). However since we/I didn't update `trait_or_trait_impl` in all places to reflect reality (similar to us not updating `in_trait_impl` before), this lead to rust-lang#121607 (comment) getting wrongfully rejected. Since PR rust-lang#119505 we reject visibilities if the “globally tracked” (wrt. to `AstValidator`) `outer_trait_or_trait_impl` is `Some`. Crucially, when visiting an inherent impl, I never reset `outer_trait_or_trait_impl` back to `None` leading us to believe that `bar` in the stack [`trait Foo` > `fn foo` > `impl Bar` > `pub fn bar`] (from the MCVE) was an inherent associated item (we saw `trait Foo` but not `impl Bar` before it). The old open issue rust-lang#89342 is caused by the aforementioned issue of us never updating `in_trait_impl` prior to my PR rust-lang#119505 / `outer_trait_or_trait` after my PR. Stack: [`impl Default for Foo` > `{` > `impl Foo` > `pub const X`] (we only saw `impl Default for Foo` but not the `impl Foo` before it). --- This PR is only meant to be a *hot fix*. I plan on completely *rewriting* `AstValidator` from the ground up to not rely on “globally tracked” state like this or at least make it close to impossible to forget updating it when descending into nested items (etc.). Other visitors do a way better job at that (e.g. AST lowering). I actually plan on experimenting with moving more and more logic from `AstValidator` into the AST lowering pass/stage/visitor to follow the [Parse, don't validate](https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-validate/) “pattern”. --- r? `@compiler-errors`
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Mar 8, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#122004 - fmease:astvalidator-min-fix, r=compiler-errors AST validation: Improve handling of inherent impls nested within functions and anon consts Minimal fix for issue rust-lang#121607 extracted from PR rust-lang#120698 for ease of backporting and since I'd like to improve PR rust-lang#120698 in such a way that it makes AST validator truly robust against such sort of regressions (AST validator is generally *beyond* footgun-y atm). The current version of PR rust-lang#120698 sort of does that already but there's still room for improvement. Fixes rust-lang#89342. Fixes [after beta-backport] rust-lang#121607. Partially addresses rust-lang#119924 (rust-lang#120698 aims to fully fix it). --- ### Explainer The last commit of PR rust-lang#119505 regressed issue rust-lang#121607. Previously we would reject visibilities on associated items with `visibility_not_permitted` if we were in a trait (by checking the parameter `ctxt` of `visit_assoc_item` which was 100% accurate) or if we were in a trait impl (by checking a flag called `in_trait_impl` tracked in `AstValidator` which was/is only accurate if the visitor methods correctly updated it which isn't actually the case giving rise to the old open issue rust-lang#89342). In PR rust-lang#119505, I moved even more state into the `AstValidator` by generalizing the flag `in_trait_impl` to `trait_or_trait_impl` to be able to report more precise diagnostics (modeling *Trait | TraitImpl*). However since we/I didn't update `trait_or_trait_impl` in all places to reflect reality (similar to us not updating `in_trait_impl` before), this lead to rust-lang#121607 (comment) getting wrongfully rejected. Since PR rust-lang#119505 we reject visibilities if the “globally tracked” (wrt. to `AstValidator`) `outer_trait_or_trait_impl` is `Some`. Crucially, when visiting an inherent impl, I never reset `outer_trait_or_trait_impl` back to `None` leading us to believe that `bar` in the stack [`trait Foo` > `fn foo` > `impl Bar` > `pub fn bar`] (from the MCVE) was an inherent associated item (we saw `trait Foo` but not `impl Bar` before it). The old open issue rust-lang#89342 is caused by the aforementioned issue of us never updating `in_trait_impl` prior to my PR rust-lang#119505 / `outer_trait_or_trait` after my PR. Stack: [`impl Default for Foo` > `{` > `impl Foo` > `pub const X`] (we only saw `impl Default for Foo` but not the `impl Foo` before it). --- This PR is only meant to be a *hot fix*. I plan on completely *rewriting* `AstValidator` from the ground up to not rely on “globally tracked” state like this or at least make it close to impossible to forget updating it when descending into nested items (etc.). Other visitors do a way better job at that (e.g. AST lowering). I actually plan on experimenting with moving more and more logic from `AstValidator` into the AST lowering pass/stage/visitor to follow the [Parse, don't validate](https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-validate/) “pattern”. --- r? `@compiler-errors`
bgallois
pushed a commit
to duniter/duniter-polkadot-sdk
that referenced
this issue
Mar 25, 2024
Apparently they changed detection for visibility identifiers on traits, which broke more than it should. There is an issue open: rust-lang/rust#119924 The easy solution for us is to move the declaration of the global variable outside of the trait. Closes: paritytech#2960
matthiaskrgr
added
the
I-ICE
Issue: The compiler panicked, giving an Internal Compilation Error (ICE) ❄️
label
Apr 5, 2024
matthiaskrgr
added
the
S-bug-has-test
Status: This bug is tracked inside the repo by a `known-bug` test.
label
Apr 15, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
A-associated-items
Area: Associated items (types, constants & functions)
C-bug
Category: This is a bug.
I-ICE
Issue: The compiler panicked, giving an Internal Compilation Error (ICE) ❄️
S-bug-has-test
Status: This bug is tracked inside the repo by a `known-bug` test.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
The following programs get wrongfully rejected since my PR #119505 (nightly-2024-01-04):
The following program was incorrectly rejected even before my PR #119505 (nightly-2024-01-04):
The following programs lead to an ICE even before my PR (e.g., in nightly-2023-12-31):
There are many more issues and probably many more ways to reproduce this, e.g. we don't visit attributes on associated functions under certain circumstances (I couldn't find a reproducer yet in which you can observe the bug).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: