Open
Conversation
fmease
reviewed
Mar 2, 2026
Comment on lines
+1179
to
+1182
| let has_self_assoc_type = if let SelfSource::QPath(ty) = source | ||
| && let hir::TyKind::Path(hir::QPath::Resolved(_, path)) = ty.kind | ||
| && let Res::SelfTyAlias { alias_to: impl_def_id, .. } = path.res | ||
| && let DefKind::Impl { .. } = self.tcx.def_kind(impl_def_id) |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While this does nicely detect the scenario in issue #142797, it's not very general. E.g., it obviously doesn't account for:
struct Struct;
trait Trait { type AssocStruct; }
impl Trait for i32 { type AssocStruct = Struct; }
fn main() { let _ = i32::AssocStruct; } //~ ERROR no associated item … found …
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense, fixed along with the below comment: 5a0eccf
Comment on lines
+3
to
+4
| #![allow(dead_code, unused_variables)] | ||
|
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| #![allow(dead_code, unused_variables)] |
Compiletest already automatically adds -Aunused to UI tests (unless they're run-{pass,crash}) which implies dead_code and unused_variables.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I always forgot to remove them on copy-pasting from the playground... Fixed in 5a0eccf.
Comment on lines
1193
to
1204
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering if we should just unconditionally talk about associated function or constant instead of associated item because that's actually the truth, rustc_hir_typeck::method looks for assoc fns, assoc consts & enum variants, not assoc items in general.
Then we wouldn't need to check for the presence of assoc tys which is rather ad hoc.
variant or associated item→variant, associated function or constantfunction or associated item,associated item→associated function or constant
I know it's slightly lengthier but associated item is strictly speaking incorrect. @estebank, I'd also like to hear what you think about this proposal :)
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough, aligned to your proposal in 5a0eccf. Would like to know Esteban's view as well.
2fe5590 to
5a0eccf
Compare
Collaborator
|
This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
Collaborator
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
Contributor
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #153605) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
Fix #142797
r? @fmease