From c8ee3f20823251b6141f3046593526c5bb218da3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nick Cameron Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:24:55 +1200 Subject: [PATCH] save-analysis: be a bit more defensive with field sub-expressions Prevents an ice with `(...).f` since the sub-expression is in the AST but not the HIR. We could actually do better in this specific case, but it doesn't seem worth it. --- src/librustc_save_analysis/lib.rs | 12 +++++++++--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/librustc_save_analysis/lib.rs b/src/librustc_save_analysis/lib.rs index 8c00a569993..8c3c6546642 100644 --- a/src/librustc_save_analysis/lib.rs +++ b/src/librustc_save_analysis/lib.rs @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ pub mod external_data; pub mod span_utils; use rustc::hir; -use rustc::hir::map::NodeItem; +use rustc::hir::map::{Node, NodeItem}; use rustc::hir::def::Def; use rustc::hir::def_id::DefId; use rustc::session::config::CrateType::CrateTypeExecutable; @@ -392,7 +392,14 @@ impl<'l, 'tcx: 'l> SaveContext<'l, 'tcx> { } match expr.node { ast::ExprKind::Field(ref sub_ex, ident) => { - let hir_node = self.tcx.map.expect_expr(sub_ex.id); + let hir_node = match self.tcx.map.find(sub_ex.id) { + Some(Node::NodeExpr(expr)) => expr, + _ => { + debug!("Missing or weird node for sub-expression {} in {:?}", + sub_ex.id, expr); + return None; + } + }; match self.tcx.expr_ty_adjusted(&hir_node).sty { ty::TyStruct(def, _) => { let f = def.struct_variant().field_named(ident.node.name); @@ -412,7 +419,6 @@ impl<'l, 'tcx: 'l> SaveContext<'l, 'tcx> { } } ast::ExprKind::Struct(ref path, _, _) => { - let hir_node = self.tcx.map.expect_expr(expr.id); match self.tcx.expr_ty_adjusted(&hir_node).sty { ty::TyStruct(def, _) => { let sub_span = self.span_utils.span_for_last_ident(path.span);