Skip to content

Conversation

@lqd
Copy link
Member

@lqd lqd commented Dec 4, 2025

This fixes an oversight in the previous PRs, this constraint is local to a point (and liveness does the rest) and so has a fixed direction.

I wasn't planning on trying to improve the impl for perf, versus computing loan liveness without first unifying the cfg and subset graph, but it's like a 20x improvement for typeck constraints on wg-grammar (-15% end-to-end) for a trivial fix.

r? @jackh726

In general, I want to cleanup these edges to avoid off-by-one errors in constraints at effectful statements and ensure the midpoint-avoidance strategy is sound and works well, in particular with respect to edges that flow backwards from the result into its inputs. But I'd like to start from something that passes all tests and is simpler, because the eventual solution may

  1. involve localizing these edges differently than separate liveness and typeck lowering passes/approaches, which would need to be lowered at the same time for example. I'm already doing the latter in the loan liveness rewrite as part of creating edges on-demand during traversal, and this new structure would be a better fit to verify, or fix, these subtle edges.
  2. also require changes in MIR typeck to track the flow across points more precisely, and I don't know how hard that would be. Computing the constraint direction is currently a workaround for that.

Therefore, in a future PR, I'll also remove this computation from the terminator constraints, but I can also do that in this PR if you'd prefer.

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Dec 4, 2025
@lqd lqd force-pushed the fix-typeck-constraints branch from 1d6cfb2 to 38f795d Compare December 7, 2025 13:35
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Dec 7, 2025

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants