We allow infinitely expanding types behind pointer indirection
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
I-types-nominated
needs-triage
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 119k
- Forks
- 16.1k
- PR merge metrics
- PR metrics pending
Description
This compiles
struct Foo<T> {
y: T,
x: Option<*const Foo<(T,)>>,
}
fn main() {
let x = Foo {
y: 1u32,
x: None,
};
}
It feels quite brittle however, e.g. the following does not:
struct Foo<T> {
y: T,
// We recur due to drop checking
x: Option<Box<Foo<(T,)>>>,
}
fn main() {
let x = Foo {
y: 1u32,
x: None,
};
}
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by compiling the two Rust examples in the issue and compare the behavior of the raw-pointer and Box forms. Investigate the compiler's handling of recursive type expansion and drop checking; done means the accepted and rejected cases have a documented, consistent rationale or a targeted fix with regression coverage.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100