-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13k
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
Attempt to normalize FnDef
signature in InferCtxt::cmp
#100473
Attempt to normalize FnDef
signature in InferCtxt::cmp
#100473
Conversation
(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
r? diagnostics (or maybe @rust-lang/types?) |
3a5a285
to
818de76
Compare
Here is a real world use case where this would have been enormously helpful: https://mobile.twitter.com/joshuayn514/status/1557913836337786880 |
I'm r+ on this, but want to make sure another pair of eyes looks at this r? rust-lang/types |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nits, then r=me
818de76
to
7292a63
Compare
7292a63
to
e5602cb
Compare
Added @bors r=lcnr |
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#99517 (Display raw pointer as *{mut,const} T instead of *-ptr in errors) - rust-lang#99928 (Do not leak type variables from opaque type relation) - rust-lang#100473 (Attempt to normalize `FnDef` signature in `InferCtxt::cmp`) - rust-lang#100653 (Move the cast_float_to_int fallback code to GCC) - rust-lang#100941 (Point at the string inside literal and mention if we need string inte…) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Stashes a normalization callback in
InferCtxt
so that the signature we get fromtcx.fn_sig(..).subst(..)
inInferCtxt::cmp
can be properly normalized, since we cannot expect for it to have normalized types since it comes straight from astconv.This is kind of a hack, but I will say that @jyn514 found the fact that we present unnormalized types to be very confusing in real life code, and I agree with that feeling. Though altogether I am still a bit unsure about whether this PR is worth the effort, so I'm open to alternatives and/or just closing it outright.
On the other hand, this isn't a ridiculously heavy implementation anyways -- it's less than a hundred lines of changes, and half of that is just miscellaneous cleanup.
This is stacked onto #100471 which is basically unrelated, and it can be rebased off of that when that lands or if needed.
The code:
Before:
After: