Skip to content

Typechecker should not check argument types after it finds incorrect # of params #871

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
marijnh opened this issue Aug 29, 2011 · 1 comment
Closed

Typechecker should not check argument types after it finds incorrect # of params #871

marijnh opened this issue Aug 29, 2011 · 1 comment
Labels
A-type-system Area: Type system

Comments

@marijnh
Copy link
Contributor

marijnh commented Aug 29, 2011

Right now, if you forget a parameter, you first get an error about the wrong number of parameters, and then more errors about the mismatched types of the parameters you provided.
@msullivan
Copy link
Contributor

It is important to still typecheck the argument expressions, or else the compiler fails with an internal error when it finds an expression without a type in the type table. That doesn't mean we need to check against the arguments, though. Anyways, I'll take this.

ZuseZ4 pushed a commit to EnzymeAD/rust that referenced this issue Mar 7, 2023
@wsmoses
Print source line location where type depth reached. (rust-lang#871)
736092f 
* Only with inst

* cleanup

* Add external warning

* Add checkedmerge

* fixup

* preserve ptls

* Fix LLVM Load default TT

* Fix phi lose
coastalwhite pushed a commit to coastalwhite/rust that referenced this issue Aug 5, 2023
Make function signatures consistent (rust-lang#871)
f46a47f
celinval added a commit to celinval/rust-dev that referenced this issue Jun 4, 2024
@celinval @tedinski
Turn goto-c backend library into a module. (rust-lang#871)
140a2f3 
* Change backend library to be a module in the compiler

Also rename from rustc_codegen_kani to codegen_cprover_gotoc

Keeping cprover dependencies separate in case we ever decided to add
another backend.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
A-type-system Area: Type system
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@marijnh @msullivan