Skip to content
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

Remove logic to suggest clone of function output #128241

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 27, 2024

Conversation

compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

@compiler-errors compiler-errors commented Jul 26, 2024

I can't exactly tell, but I believe that this suggestion is operating off of a heuristic that the lifetime of a function's input is correlated with the lifetime of a function's output in such a way that cloning would fix an error. I don't think that actually manages to hit the bar of "actually provides useful suggestions" most of the time.

Specifically, I've hit false-positives due to this suggestion twice when fixing ICEs in the compiler, so I don't think it's worthwhile having this logic around. Neither of the two affected UI tests are actually fixed by the suggestion.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 26, 2024

r? @jieyouxu

rustbot has assigned @jieyouxu.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 26, 2024
Copy link
Member

@jieyouxu jieyouxu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, this does look weird to me.

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 27, 2024

📌 Commit e7eae53 has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 27, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 27, 2024
Rollup of 8 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#125897 (from_ref, from_mut: clarify documentation)
 - rust-lang#128207 (improve error message when `global_asm!` uses `asm!` options)
 - rust-lang#128241 (Remove logic to suggest clone of function output)
 - rust-lang#128259 ([illumos/solaris] set MSG_NOSIGNAL while writing to sockets)
 - rust-lang#128262 (Delete `SimplifyArmIdentity` and `SimplifyBranchSame` tests)
 - rust-lang#128266 (update `rust.channel` default value documentation)
 - rust-lang#128267 (Add rustdoc GUI test to check title with and without search)
 - rust-lang#128271 (Disable jump threading of float equality)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit ee25d99 into rust-lang:master Jul 27, 2024
6 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.82.0 milestone Jul 27, 2024
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 27, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#128241 - compiler-errors:clone-sugg, r=jieyouxu

Remove logic to suggest clone of function output

I can't exactly tell, but I believe that this suggestion is operating off of a heuristic that the lifetime of a function's input is correlated with the lifetime of a function's output in such a way that cloning would fix an error. I don't think that actually manages to hit the bar of "actually provides useful suggestions" most of the time.

Specifically, I've hit false-positives due to this suggestion *twice* when fixing ICEs in the compiler, so I don't think it's worthwhile having this logic around. Neither of the two affected UI tests are actually fixed by the suggestion.
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 31, 2024
…=estebank

Peel off explicit (or implicit) deref before suggesting clone on move error in borrowck, remove some hacks

Also remove a heck of a lot of weird hacks in `suggest_cloning` that I don't think we should have around.

I know this regresses tests, but I don't believe most of these suggestions were accurate, b/c:
1. They either produced type errors (e.g. turning `&x` into `x.clone()`)
2. They don't fix the issue
3. They fix the issue ostensibly, but introduce logic errors (e.g. cloning a `&mut Option<T>` to then `Option::take` out...)

Most of the suggestions are still wrong, but they're not particularly *less* wrong IMO.

Stacked on top of rust-lang#128241, which is an "obviously worth landing" subset of this PR.

r? estebank
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 1, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#128244 - compiler-errors:move-clone-sugg, r=estebank

Peel off explicit (or implicit) deref before suggesting clone on move error in borrowck, remove some hacks

Also remove a heck of a lot of weird hacks in `suggest_cloning` that I don't think we should have around.

I know this regresses tests, but I don't believe most of these suggestions were accurate, b/c:
1. They either produced type errors (e.g. turning `&x` into `x.clone()`)
2. They don't fix the issue
3. They fix the issue ostensibly, but introduce logic errors (e.g. cloning a `&mut Option<T>` to then `Option::take` out...)

Most of the suggestions are still wrong, but they're not particularly *less* wrong IMO.

Stacked on top of rust-lang#128241, which is an "obviously worth landing" subset of this PR.

r? estebank
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants