Improve diagnostics when a static lifetime is expected #90667
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
r? rust-lang/diagnostics |
apiraino
added
the
T-compiler
|
📌 Commit 60767b8 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2021
…ostics, r=estebank Improve diagnostics when a static lifetime is expected Makes progress towards rust-lang#90600 The diagnostics here were previously entirely removed due to giving a misleading suggestion but if we instead provide an informative label in that same location it should better help the user understand the situation. I included the example from the issue as it demonstrates an area where the diagnostics are still lacking. Happy to remove that if its just adding noise atm.
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2021
…ostics, r=estebank Improve diagnostics when a static lifetime is expected Makes progress towards rust-lang#90600 The diagnostics here were previously entirely removed due to giving a misleading suggestion but if we instead provide an informative label in that same location it should better help the user understand the situation. I included the example from the issue as it demonstrates an area where the diagnostics are still lacking. Happy to remove that if its just adding noise atm.
|
Looks like there are some test failures. Please check |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
Ah, so I need to specify |
rukai
force-pushed
the
improve_static_lifetime_diagnostics
branch
from
60767b8
to
130b9e9
Compare
|
Ready for review, the PR is completely rewritten so you should rereview from scratch. I ran the following to ensure the tests are passing: RUST_BACKTRACE=0 ./x.py test src/test/ui --stage 1 --force-rerun --compare-mode nll
RUST_BACKTRACE=0 ./x.py test src/test/ui --stage 1 --force-rerunObserved problems in the new diagnostics.1nll is missing the "captured here" notes that migrate gives, e.g. 2The nll diagnostics always name the lifetimes (e.g. `1) even when there is only one lifetime. 3The nll diagnostics say: Considering you cant outlive `static, in this case it might make more sense to say: But it seems none of the diagnostics are regressing in value so any potentital fixes for these can go in follow up PRs. If the listed problems make sense to you then I'll file a seperate issue for each of them. Strange UI testregions-static-bound has stderr files named like |
estebank
approved these changes
Nov 15, 2021
| LL | t | ||
| | ^ | ||
| | | ||
| = note: ...the reference is valid for the static lifetime... |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems like we're not looking at the bounds in the where clause to look for the source of 'static requirement. Not necessary on this PR.
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 130b9e9 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
⌛ Testing commit 130b9e9 with merge ae2a20556c445da16259c236637c61ed92e2cb63... |
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors retry |
|
@rukai: 🔑 Insufficient privileges: not in try users |
|
@bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 17, 2021
…askrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#89610 (warn on must_use use on async fn's) - rust-lang#90667 (Improve diagnostics when a static lifetime is expected) - rust-lang#90687 (Permit const panics in stable const contexts in stdlib) - rust-lang#90772 (Add Vec::retain_mut) - rust-lang#90861 (Print escaped string if char literal has multiple characters, but only one printable character) - rust-lang#90884 (Fix span for non-satisfied trivial trait bounds) - rust-lang#90900 (Remove workaround for the forward progress handling in LLVM) - rust-lang#90901 (Improve ManuallyDrop suggestion) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 6, 2023
… r=cjgillot Remove FIXME about NLL diagnostic that is already improved The FIXME was added in rust-lang#46984 when the diagnostic message looked like this: // FIXME(rust-lang#46983): error message should be better &s.0 //~ ERROR free region `` does not outlive free region `'static` The message was improved in rust-lang#90667 and now looks like this: &s.0 //~ ERROR lifetime may not live long enough but the FIXME was not removed. The issue rust-lang#46983 about that diagnostics should be improved has been closed. We can remove the FIXME now. (This PR was made for rust-lang#44366.)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Makes progress towards #90600
The diagnostics here were previously entirely removed due to giving a misleading suggestion but if we instead provide an informative label in that same location it should better help the user understand the situation.
I included the example from the issue as it demonstrates an area where the diagnostics are still lacking.
Happy to remove that if its just adding noise atm.