Rustdoc recursion limit issue

[jdonszelmann]

Today we ran into a weird issue while generating the rustdoc page for our project. As you can see here we run into a recursion limit issue. However increasing the recursion limit (#![recursion_limit = "4096"]) does not resolve it.

It worked on version 1.37.0-nightly-2019-06-21 but breaks on 1.37.0-nightly-2019-06-22

Any help would be appreciated.

Edit:
For reference as to how we got this error, here is our repo.

[nagisa]

Most likely caused by #60293, but my understanding was that with #60444 increasing the recursion limit should help.

[nagisa]

Just to make sure you are adding the recursion limit attribute to the synstructure crate, right?

[jdonszelmann]

We do not directly use the synstructure crate directly ourselves. It is listed as a dependency of PyO3.

Therefore we do not directly add it to the synstructure crate (or know how to).

[nagisa]

Minimal Cargo.toml to reproduce:

[package]
name = "a"
version = "0.1.0"

[dependencies]
synstructure = "0.10"
syn = { version = "0.15", features = ["full"] }

Adding #![recursion_limit="128"] to synstructure helps, however the leaf crates will still fail to document if they do something like this: pub struct A<'a>(pub synstructure::Structure<'a>); as those leaf crates will still have the original limit of 64. This is unlike

fn assert_unpin<T: std::marker::Unpin>() {}

pub fn foo() {
    assert_unpin::<Vec<syn::GenericParam>>();
}

which only needs the attribute in the crate which actually contains this code (i.e. it does not necessarily infect the dependent crates).

This is, sadly a deeper issue and the change in #60293 only happens to expose it. Any ideas what we could do here to remove/propagate/etc this limit when documenting cc @rust-lang/compiler?

cc @dtolnay you may want to be aware about std::vec::Vec<syn::generics::GenericParam> crating deep stacks when trying to prove implementations of autotraits.

[dtolnay]

Thanks @nagisa. Is there anything I can do about this on my end?

The trace in the error looks correct to me; this is a consequence of almost all Rust syntax being allowed inside of almost all other Rust syntax.

• std::vec::Vec<syn::GenericParam>
• contains alloc::raw_vec::RawVec<syn::GenericParam>
• contains std::ptr::Unique<syn::GenericParam>
• contains *const syn::GenericParam
• contains syn::GenericParam
• contains syn::TypeParam
• contains std::vec::Vec<syn::Attribute>
• contains alloc::raw_vec::RawVec<syn::Attribute>
• contains std::ptr::Unique<syn::Attribute>
• contains *const syn::Attribute
• contains syn::Attribute
• contains syn::Path
• contains syn::punctuated::Punctuated<syn::PathSegment, syn::token::Colon2>
• contains std::vec::Vec<(syn::PathSegment, syn::token::Colon2)>
• contains alloc::raw_vec::RawVec<(syn::PathSegment, syn::token::Colon2)>
• contains std::ptr::Unique<(syn::PathSegment, syn::token::Colon2)>
• contains *const (syn::PathSegment, syn::token::Colon2)
• contains (syn::PathSegment, syn::token::Colon2)
• contains syn::PathSegment
• contains syn::PathArguments
• contains syn::AngleBracketedGenericArguments
• contains syn::punctuated::Punctuated<syn::GenericArgument, syn::token::Comma>
• contains std::vec::Vec<(syn::GenericArgument, syn::token::Comma)>
• contains alloc::raw_vec::RawVec<(syn::GenericArgument, syn::token::Comma)>
• contains std::ptr::Unique<(syn::GenericArgument, syn::token::Comma)>
• contains *const (syn::GenericArgument, syn::token::Comma)
• contains (syn::GenericArgument, syn::token::Comma)
• contains syn::GenericArgument
• contains syn::Type
• contains syn::TypeArray
• contains syn::Expr
• contains syn::ExprIf
• contains syn::Block
• contains std::vec::Vec<syn::Stmt>
• contains alloc::raw_vec::RawVec<syn::Stmt>
• contains std::ptr::Unique<syn::Stmt>
• contains *const syn::Stmt
• contains syn::Stmt
• contains syn::Item
• contains syn::ItemType
• contains syn::Generics
• contains std::option::Option<syn::WhereClause>
• contains syn::WhereClause
• contains syn::punctuated::Punctuated<syn::WherePredicate, syn::token::Comma>
• contains std::vec::Vec<(syn::WherePredicate, syn::token::Comma)>
• contains alloc::raw_vec::RawVec<(syn::WherePredicate, syn::token::Comma)>
• contains std::ptr::Unique<(syn::WherePredicate, syn::token::Comma)>
• contains *const (syn::WherePredicate, syn::token::Comma)
• contains (syn::WherePredicate, syn::token::Comma)
• contains syn::WherePredicate
• contains syn::PredicateType
• contains std::option::Option<syn::BoundLifetimes>
• contains syn::BoundLifetimes
• contains syn::punctuated::Punctuated<syn::LifetimeDef, syn::token::Comma>
• contains std::vec::Vec<(syn::LifetimeDef, syn::token::Comma)>
• contains alloc::raw_vec::RawVec<(syn::LifetimeDef, syn::token::Comma)>
• contains std::ptr::Unique<(syn::LifetimeDef, syn::token::Comma)>
• contains *const (syn::LifetimeDef, syn::token::Comma)
• contains (syn::LifetimeDef, syn::token::Comma)
• contains syn::LifetimeDef
• contains syn::punctuated::Punctuated<syn::Lifetime, syn::token::Add>
• contains std::vec::Vec<(syn::Lifetime, syn::token::Add)>

[nagisa]

@dtolnay Other than reducing the depth of types somehow, there’s very little that can be done on your side. You could manually implement all the marker types for certain types, but the same issue will resurface for new/external auto-traits.

[dtolnay]

Does this warrant increasing the default recursion limit? I would expect the default to be selected such that it is higher than what you would need in any "reasonable" real world code. If the data structures in Syn are "reasonable" i.e. neither contrived nor somehow unsolvable regardless of recursion limit, then this suggests that the current limit is too aggressive. What are the implications of changing it?

[shepmaster]

This also affected fuzzy-pickles but there were some fixes that seemed to help there. Wonder why the difference.

[SimonSapin]

Most likely caused by #60293, but my understanding was that with #60444 increasing the recursion limit should help.

@nagisa, are you saying that the expected fix is to go through the ecosystem and add #![recursion_limit = "something"] as needed? Or, what do you think of raising the default limit, as suggested by dtolnay above?

[pnkfelix]

cc #61960, which tracks the instances where #60444 has hit an overflow during recursive trait constraint resolution.

(Also, I am assuming that this issue (#62059) is not resolved by PR #61754, but it would be good to double-check that assumption.)

---

@SimonSapin asked

@nagisa, are you saying that the expected fix is to go through the ecosystem and add #![recursion_limit = "something"] as needed? Or, what do you think of raising the default limit, as suggested by dtolnay above?

my hope is that many of the cases affected by PR #60444 will be addressed by PR #61754, which we recently approved for beta backport so that it lands in time for the release.