Revert "fix: Filter suggestion parts that match existing code" #148043

lqd · 2025-10-23T16:51:06Z

As requested by @wesleywiser in #147973 (comment) this is a revert of #146121 due to the handful of diagnostics ICEs that have been since reported, and found in the beta crater run.

This should thus also be backported to beta so the ICEs don't make it to next week's stable.

Works around (after backport)

ICE: all spans must be disjoint #146261
ICE：assertion left == right failed: all spans must be disjoint #146706
ICE: all spans must be disjoint (single-use-lifetimes) #146834 but I didn't add a test for this allowed-by-default lint
as well as the crater run regressions from regression: ICE all spans must be disjoint #147973 of which I only added the MCVE as a test.

The proper fix would likely be #147849 but it's still currently at the MCP stage. In the meantime, this PR would still emit the same overlapping suggestions, but still use a debug-assert...

r? @wesleywiser

rustbot · 2025-10-23T16:51:09Z

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

rustc_errors::emitter was changed

cc @Muscraft

rustbot · 2025-10-23T16:51:11Z

wesleywiser is currently at their maximum review capacity.
They may take a while to respond.

lqd · 2025-10-23T17:14:33Z

I wanted to wait for the reviewer to at least see the PR before nominating for a backport, or for CI to pass.

lqd · 2025-10-23T17:58:03Z

Alright, so it seems likely we already have overlapping spans being emitted in the wild, but we didn't notice as we don't have tests that trigger this debug assertion.

I could maybe make these tests known-bugs, or as test/crashes + //@ needs-rustc-debug-assertions, so CI w/ debug-assertions passes. Or I guess we could turn the

rust/compiler/rustc_errors/src/lib.rs

Lines 404 to 408 in 6501e64

    
           assert_eq!( 
        
               substitution.parts.array_windows().find(|[a, b]| a.span.overlaps(b.span)), 
        
               None, 
        
               "all spans must be disjoint", 
        
           );

assert into a debug_assert for likely the same results as this revert?

What do you think @wesleywiser?

…arts, r=petrochenkov" This reverts commit 99317ef, reversing changes made to 9cd272d.

wesleywiser · 2025-10-23T21:04:48Z

I think making the tests know-bugs is probably the right move. Even if we change the assert! to a debug_assert!, we'd have to do that anyway to add the regression tests.

rustbot · 2025-10-23T22:16:30Z

This PR changes a file inside tests/crashes. If a crash was fixed, please move into the corresponding ui subdir and add 'Fixes #' to the PR description to autoclose the issue upon merge.

rustbot · 2025-10-23T22:16:31Z

This PR was rebased onto a different master 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.

rustbot · 2025-10-23T22:16:32Z

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

There are issue links (such as #123) in the commit messages of the following commits.
Please move them to the PR description, to avoid spamming the issues with references to the commit, and so this bot can automatically canonicalize them to avoid issues with subtree.
- a2b4833

wesleywiser

Thanks for getting this done so quick @lqd!

r=me when CI is green

View changes since this review

lqd · 2025-10-23T22:20:46Z

I think making the tests know-bugs is probably the right move

I've added them specifically as tests/crashes as they're quite a natural fit there: as UI tests, one would probably want to avoid blessing the ICE backtrace, would need to check for the 101 exit code, and so on, a crash test in practice.

lqd · 2025-10-24T05:11:42Z

@bors r=wesleywiser

bors · 2025-10-24T05:11:45Z

📌 Commit dd83c57 has been approved by wesleywiser

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2025-10-24T09:39:10Z

⌛ Testing commit dd83c57 with merge 0d09c4d...

Revert "fix: Filter suggestion parts that match existing code" As requested by `@wesleywiser` in #147973 (comment) this is a revert of #146121 due to the handful of diagnostics ICEs that have been since reported, and found in the beta crater run. This should thus also be backported to beta so the ICEs don't make it to next week's stable. Works around (after backport) - #146261 - #146706 - #146834 but I didn't add a test for this allowed-by-default lint - as well as the crater run regressions from #147973 of which I only added the MCVE as a test. The proper fix would likely be #147849 but it's still currently at the MCP stage. In the meantime, this PR would still emit the same overlapping suggestions, but still use a debug-assert... r? `@wesleywiser`

bors · 2025-10-24T09:51:57Z

⌛ Testing commit dd83c57 with merge 8aab621...

bors · 2025-10-24T12:59:05Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: wesleywiser
Pushing 8aab621 to master...

github-actions · 2025-10-24T13:02:15Z

What is this?

This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing 75948c8 (parent) -> 8aab621 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 11 test diffs

Stage 1

[crashes] tests/crashes/146261.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)
[crashes] tests/crashes/146706.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)
[crashes] tests/crashes/147973.rs: [missing] -> pass (J1)

Stage 2

[crashes] tests/crashes/146261.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)
[crashes] tests/crashes/146706.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)
[crashes] tests/crashes/147973.rs: [missing] -> pass (J0)
[crashes] tests/crashes/146261.rs: [missing] -> ignore (ignored if rustc wasn't built with debug assertions) (J2)
[crashes] tests/crashes/146706.rs: [missing] -> ignore (ignored if rustc wasn't built with debug assertions) (J2)
[crashes] tests/crashes/147973.rs: [missing] -> ignore (ignored if rustc wasn't built with debug assertions) (J2)

Additionally, 2 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 8aab621cd56bdc704f73c9d9aaa9f35ab5ee55b0 --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

pr-check-1: 1569.3s -> 1930.9s (23.0%)
dist-x86_64-apple: 6926.2s -> 7866.7s (13.6%)
dist-apple-various: 3228.0s -> 3660.0s (13.4%)
i686-gnu-2: 5691.9s -> 6430.7s (13.0%)
aarch64-apple: 9147.4s -> 8083.1s (-11.6%)
dist-aarch64-apple: 6403.6s -> 7138.1s (11.5%)
i686-gnu-nopt-2: 7471.9s -> 8102.5s (8.4%)
dist-x86_64-windows-gnullvm: 4654.5s -> 5045.9s (8.4%)
x86_64-gnu-stable: 7499.7s -> 6898.7s (-8.0%)
x86_64-gnu-gcc: 3060.7s -> 3296.5s (7.7%)

How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

rust-timer · 2025-10-24T15:14:09Z

Finished benchmarking commit (8aab621): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary 0.9%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.3%, 2.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.5%	[-0.5%, -0.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

Results (secondary 0.0%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.0%	[0.0%, 0.0%]	1
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Bootstrap: 474.959s -> 475.14s (0.04%)
Artifact size: 390.49 MiB -> 390.49 MiB (-0.00%)

apiraino · 2025-10-24T15:46:24Z

Beta backport accepted as per compiler team on Zulip. A backport PR will be authored by the release team at the end of the current development cycle. Backport labels handled by them.

@rustbot label +beta-accepted

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-clippy Relevant to the Clippy team. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 23, 2025

rustbot assigned wesleywiser Oct 23, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

theemathas added the beta-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. label Oct 23, 2025

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

Revert "Auto merge of rust-lang#146121 - Muscraft:filter-suggestion-p…

a2b4833

…arts, r=petrochenkov" This reverts commit 99317ef, reversing changes made to 9cd272d.

add crashes tests for overlapping spans

dd83c57

lqd force-pushed the revert-146121 branch from 0c146ac to dd83c57 Compare October 23, 2025 22:16

wesleywiser approved these changes Oct 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Oct 24, 2025

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Oct 24, 2025

bors merged commit 8aab621 into rust-lang:master Oct 24, 2025
12 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.92.0 milestone Oct 24, 2025

lqd deleted the revert-146121 branch October 24, 2025 13:33

rustbot added the beta-accepted Accepted for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. label Oct 24, 2025

Revert "fix: Filter suggestion parts that match existing code" #148043

Revert "fix: Filter suggestion parts that match existing code" #148043

Conversation

lqd commented Oct 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 23, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 23, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

lqd commented Oct 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

This comment has been minimized.

lqd commented Oct 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

wesleywiser commented Oct 23, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 23, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 23, 2025

Uh oh!

rustbot commented Oct 23, 2025

Uh oh!

wesleywiser left a comment • edited by rustbot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lqd commented Oct 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

lqd commented Oct 24, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Oct 24, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Oct 24, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Oct 24, 2025

Uh oh!

bors commented Oct 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Oct 24, 2025

Test differences

Stage 1

Stage 2

Job duration changes

Uh oh!

rust-timer commented Oct 24, 2025

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Instruction count

Max RSS (memory usage)

Cycles

Binary size

Uh oh!

apiraino commented Oct 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

8 participants

lqd commented Oct 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

lqd commented Oct 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

lqd commented Oct 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

wesleywiser left a comment •

edited by rustbot

Loading

lqd commented Oct 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading