librustc: Disallow mutation and assignment in pattern guards, and modify#15989
Closed
pcwalton wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Closed
librustc: Disallow mutation and assignment in pattern guards, and modify#15989pcwalton wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
pcwalton wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
Note that the code in the parser that I had to change was actually quite dangerous—it was matching on |
the CFG for match statements. There were two bugs in issue rust-lang#14684. One was simply that the borrow check didn't know about the correct CFG for match statements: the pattern must be a predecessor of the guard. This disallows the bad behavior if there are bindings in the pattern. But it isn't enough to prevent the memory safety problem, because of wildcards; thus, this patch introduces a more restrictive rule, which disallows assignments and mutable borrows inside guards outright. I discussed this with Niko and we decided this was the best plan of action. This breaks code that performs mutable borrows in pattern guards. Most commonly, the code looks like this: impl Foo { fn f(&mut self, ...) {} fn g(&mut self, ...) { match bar { Baz if self.f(...) => { ... } _ => { ... } } } } Change this code to not use a guard. For example: impl Foo { fn f(&mut self, ...) {} fn g(&mut self, ...) { match bar { Baz => { if self.f(...) { ... } else { ... } } _ => { ... } } } } Sometimes this can result in code duplication, but often it illustrates a hidden memory safety problem. Closes rust-lang#14684. [breaking-change]
Contributor
|
@pcwalton Am I right in thinking that in principle, we could later (backward compatibly) loosen the restrictions imposed here so that one could again mutate, assign, and mutably-borrow bindings that came from outside the current match expression that the guard occurs on? |
Contributor
Author
|
Yes. |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 29, 2014
the CFG for match statements. There were two bugs in issue #14684. One was simply that the borrow check didn't know about the correct CFG for match statements: the pattern must be a predecessor of the guard. This disallows the bad behavior if there are bindings in the pattern. But it isn't enough to prevent the memory safety problem, because of wildcards; thus, this patch introduces a more restrictive rule, which disallows assignments and mutable borrows inside guards outright. I discussed this with Niko and we decided this was the best plan of action. This breaks code that performs mutable borrows in pattern guards. Most commonly, the code looks like this: impl Foo { fn f(&mut self, ...) {} fn g(&mut self, ...) { match bar { Baz if self.f(...) => { ... } _ => { ... } } } } Change this code to not use a guard. For example: impl Foo { fn f(&mut self, ...) {} fn g(&mut self, ...) { match bar { Baz => { if self.f(...) { ... } else { ... } } _ => { ... } } } } Sometimes this can result in code duplication, but often it illustrates a hidden memory safety problem. Closes #14684. [breaking-change] r? @pnkfelix
This was referenced Mar 23, 2015
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 4, 2023
…r=Veykril fix: Err for comma after functional update syntax Error message copied from rustc, https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=20aeedb2db504c4e4ced54b665e761d6. Fixes rust-lang#15989.
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
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.
the CFG for match statements.
There were two bugs in issue #14684. One was simply that the borrow
check didn't know about the correct CFG for match statements: the
pattern must be a predecessor of the guard. This disallows the bad
behavior if there are bindings in the pattern. But it isn't enough to
prevent the memory safety problem, because of wildcards; thus, this
patch introduces a more restrictive rule, which disallows assignments
and mutable borrows inside guards outright.
I discussed this with Niko and we decided this was the best plan of
action.
This breaks code that performs mutable borrows in pattern guards. Most
commonly, the code looks like this:
Change this code to not use a guard. For example:
Sometimes this can result in code duplication, but often it illustrates
a hidden memory safety problem.
Closes #14684.
[breaking-change]
r? @pnkfelix