From 1fcf2eaa9f5ff9336e9b43f017eaf261acfdc2d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Goulet Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:35:44 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Uniquify ReError on input mode in canonicalizer --- .../src/canonicalizer.rs | 3 +- .../next-solver/dont-canonicalize-re-error.rs | 28 +++++++++++++++++++ .../dont-canonicalize-re-error.stderr | 21 ++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tests/ui/traits/next-solver/dont-canonicalize-re-error.rs create mode 100644 tests/ui/traits/next-solver/dont-canonicalize-re-error.stderr diff --git a/compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/canonicalizer.rs b/compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/canonicalizer.rs index 95b30066662..2dbb44bdee2 100644 --- a/compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/canonicalizer.rs +++ b/compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/canonicalizer.rs @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ impl, I: Interner> TypeFolder // FIXME: We should investigate the perf implications of not uniquifying // `ReErased`. We may be able to short-circuit registering region // obligations if we encounter a `ReErased` on one side, for example. - ty::ReStatic | ty::ReErased => match self.canonicalize_mode { + ty::ReStatic | ty::ReErased | ty::ReError(_) => match self.canonicalize_mode { CanonicalizeMode::Input => CanonicalVarKind::Region(ty::UniverseIndex::ROOT), CanonicalizeMode::Response { .. } => return r, }, @@ -277,7 +277,6 @@ impl, I: Interner> TypeFolder } } } - ty::ReError(_) => return r, }; let existing_bound_var = match self.canonicalize_mode { diff --git a/tests/ui/traits/next-solver/dont-canonicalize-re-error.rs b/tests/ui/traits/next-solver/dont-canonicalize-re-error.rs new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..57f814bc81e --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/ui/traits/next-solver/dont-canonicalize-re-error.rs @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +//@ compile-flags: -Znext-solver + +trait Tr<'a> {} + +// Fulfillment in the new solver relies on an invariant to hold: Either +// `has_changed` is true, or computing a goal's certainty is idempotent. +// This isn't true for `ReError`, which we used to pass through in the +// canonicalizer even on input mode, which can cause a goal to go from +// ambig => pass, but we don't consider `has_changed` when the response +// only contains region constraints (since we usually uniquify regions). +// +// In this test: +// Implicit negative coherence tries to prove `W: Constrain<'?1>`, +// which will then match with the impl below. This constrains `'?1` to +// `ReError`, but still bails w/ ambiguity bc we can't prove `?0: Sized`. +// Then, when we recompute the goal `W: Constrain<'error>`, when +// collecting ambiguities and overflows, we end up assembling a default +// error candidate w/o ambiguity, which causes the goal to pass, and ICE. +impl<'a, A: ?Sized> Tr<'a> for W {} +struct W(A); +impl<'a, A: ?Sized> Tr<'a> for A where A: Constrain<'a> {} +//~^ ERROR conflicting implementations of trait `Tr<'_>` for type `W<_>` + +trait Constrain<'a> {} +impl Constrain<'missing> for W {} +//~^ ERROR use of undeclared lifetime name `'missing` + +fn main() {} diff --git a/tests/ui/traits/next-solver/dont-canonicalize-re-error.stderr b/tests/ui/traits/next-solver/dont-canonicalize-re-error.stderr new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..cf85c52fb42 --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/ui/traits/next-solver/dont-canonicalize-re-error.stderr @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +error[E0261]: use of undeclared lifetime name `'missing` + --> $DIR/dont-canonicalize-re-error.rs:25:26 + | +LL | impl Constrain<'missing> for W {} + | - ^^^^^^^^ undeclared lifetime + | | + | help: consider introducing lifetime `'missing` here: `'missing,` + +error[E0119]: conflicting implementations of trait `Tr<'_>` for type `W<_>` + --> $DIR/dont-canonicalize-re-error.rs:21:1 + | +LL | impl<'a, A: ?Sized> Tr<'a> for W {} + | ----------------------------------- first implementation here +LL | struct W(A); +LL | impl<'a, A: ?Sized> Tr<'a> for A where A: Constrain<'a> {} + | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ conflicting implementation for `W<_>` + +error: aborting due to 2 previous errors + +Some errors have detailed explanations: E0119, E0261. +For more information about an error, try `rustc --explain E0119`.