-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Forgone caching in cycles caused much overflow in trait solving #61960
Comments
In case its not clear from my description: It is possible that this issue is entirely resolved by PR #61754, at least on the nightly channel. This umbrella issue is meant to be a place where I can make a list of all the relevant regressions and evaluate whether PR #61754 fixed them, which may inform a future decision on whether or not to beta-backport that PR. |
Hmm, I may have been overly hasty in creating a fresh umbrella issue to track "all" the regressions here. Now that I look again at the list, and at the cross-references to PR #60444, it seems like issue #61472 may be the only issue on the Rust repo here? (I do believe that rust-lang/rust-analyzer#1283 may be another instance of this issue, but that isn't an issue on the rust-lang/rust repo, so it seems a little silly to try to include it on this list...) |
I've tried |
It overflowed half an hour later |
triage: P-high, removing nomination. |
Unassigning self; I still think this is important, but I'm not going to be able to address it, at least not until I return from leave in September. |
Pre-triage visit: Doubt this will be looked at before vacation spree ends, but if you want to give it a shot, by all means do so. |
visiting for triage. Downgrading to P-medium and re-assigning back to self. |
We believe PR #60444 injected a number of regressions of the form "overflow evaluating requirement [...]".
(PR #60444 also injected a compile-time performance regression; that arguably distinct issue is tracked in issue #60846.)
This issue is meant to collect the cases where there was some sort of "overflow evaluating requirement" that was injected by PR #60444. (It is possible that many (or even all) such cases are resolved by follow-up PR #61754. I'll be beta-nominating that PR on its own so that we can evaluate that question in the compiler-team meeting.)
Update: adding list of cases to investigate:
where
clause #62430The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: