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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

regression: abs_diff conflict leading to compilation failures #90320

Closed
Mark-Simulacrum opened this issue Oct 26, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #90329
Closed

regression: abs_diff conflict leading to compilation failures #90320

Mark-Simulacrum opened this issue Oct 26, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #90329
Assignees
@nbdd0121
Labels
regression-from-stable-to-beta Performance or correctness regression from stable to beta. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Milestone
1.57.0

Comments

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

Mark-Simulacrum commented Oct 26, 2021 •
edited by rustbot
Loading

The abs_diff API was added to integer types in #88780, which is leading to compilation failures in:

Since it's just a couple cases I suspect we can just accept this regression, but wanted to surface it to T-libs-api. (Maybe a rename or something is in order).
@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. regression-from-stable-to-beta Performance or correctness regression from stable to beta. labels Oct 26, 2021
@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum added this to the 1.57.0 milestone Oct 26, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added the I-prioritize Issue: Indicates that prioritization has been requested for this issue. label Oct 26, 2021
@Mark-Simulacrum Mark-Simulacrum mentioned this issue Oct 26, 2021
Closed
@nbdd0121
Copy link
Contributor

Similar things have caused breakage a few times. I'll investigate.

@rustbot claim

@nbdd0121
Copy link
Contributor

Okay, found the issue. The issue is that we try "by_value" before "autoref", and then within each we try "stable" before "unstable", so "unstable by_value" takes priority over "stable autoref". The fix should simply be try all stable candidates first and then try unstable ones. Working on a fix now.

@nbdd0121 nbdd0121 mentioned this issue Oct 26, 2021
Merged
@m-ou-se
Copy link
Member

m-ou-se commented Oct 27, 2021

Discussed in the meeting. This is expected and acceptable. Improvements to name resolution to avoid issues like this in the future would be nice though!

@m-ou-se m-ou-se closed this as completed Oct 27, 2021
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this issue Nov 19, 2021
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#90329 - nbdd0121:typeck, r=nagisa
ce3f3a5 
Try all stable method candidates first before trying unstable ones

Currently we try methods in this order in each step:
* Stable by value
* Unstable by value
* Stable autoref
* Unstable autoref
* ...

This PR changes it to first try pick methods without any unstable candidates, and if none is found, try again to pick unstable ones.

Fix rust-lang#90320
CC rust-lang#88971, hopefully would allow us to rename the "unstable_*" methods for integer impls back.

`@rustbot` label T-compiler T-libs-api
@apiraino apiraino removed the I-prioritize Issue: Indicates that prioritization has been requested for this issue. label May 16, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@nbdd0121 nbdd0121

Labels
regression-from-stable-to-beta Performance or correctness regression from stable to beta. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.57.0
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Try all stable method candidates first before trying unstable ones nbdd0121/rust
5 participants
@m-ou-se @nbdd0121 @Mark-Simulacrum @apiraino @rustbot