Procedures for Breaking Changes

This page defines the best practices procedure for making bug fixes or soundness corrections in the compiler that can cause existing code to stop compiling. This text is based on RFC 1589.


From time to time, we encounter the need to make a bug fix, soundness correction, or other change in the compiler which will cause existing code to stop compiling. When this happens, it is important that we handle the change in a way that gives users of Rust a smooth transition. What we want to avoid is that existing programs suddenly stop compiling with opaque error messages: we would prefer to have a gradual period of warnings, with clear guidance as to what the problem is, how to fix it, and why the change was made. This RFC describes the procedure that we have been developing for handling breaking changes that aims to achieve that kind of smooth transition.

One of the key points of this policy is that (a) warnings should be issued initially rather than hard errors if at all possible and (b) every change that causes existing code to stop compiling will have an associated tracking issue. This issue provides a point to collect feedback on the results of that change. Sometimes changes have unexpectedly large consequences or there may be a way to avoid the change that was not considered. In those cases, we may decide to change course and roll back the change, or find another solution (if warnings are being used, this is particularly easy to do).

What qualifies as a bug fix?

Note that this RFC does not try to define when a breaking change is permitted. That is already covered under RFC 1122. This document assumes that the change being made is in accordance with those policies. Here is a summary of the conditions from RFC 1122:

  • Soundness changes: Fixes to holes uncovered in the type system.
  • Compiler bugs: Places where the compiler is not implementing the specified semantics found in an RFC or lang-team decision.
  • Underspecified language semantics: Clarifications to grey areas where the compiler behaves inconsistently and no formal behavior had been previously decided.

Please see the RFC for full details!

Detailed design

The procedure for making a breaking change is as follows (each of these steps is described in more detail below):

  1. Do a crater run to assess the impact of the change.
  2. Make a special tracking issue dedicated to the change.
  3. Do not report an error right away. Instead, issue forwards-compatibility lint warnings.
    • Sometimes this is not straightforward. See the text below for suggestions on different techniques we have employed in the past.
    • For cases where warnings are infeasible:
      • Report errors, but make every effort to give a targeted error message that directs users to the tracking issue
      • Submit PRs to all known affected crates that fix the issue
        • or, at minimum, alert the owners of those crates to the problem and direct them to the tracking issue
  4. Once the change has been in the wild for at least one cycle, we can stabilize the change, converting those warnings into errors.

Finally, for changes to rustc_ast that will affect plugins, the general policy is to batch these changes. That is discussed below in more detail.

Tracking issue

Every breaking change should be accompanied by a dedicated tracking issue for that change. The main text of this issue should describe the change being made, with a focus on what users must do to fix their code. The issue should be approachable and practical; it may make sense to direct users to an RFC or some other issue for the full details. The issue also serves as a place where users can comment with questions or other concerns.

A template for these breaking-change tracking issues can be found below. An example of how such an issue should look can be found here.

The issue should be tagged with (at least) B-unstable and T-compiler.

Tracking issue template

This is a template to use for tracking issues:

This is the **summary issue** for the `YOUR_LINT_NAME_HERE`
future-compatibility warning and other related errors. The goal of
this page is describe why this change was made and how you can fix
code that is affected by it. It also provides a place to ask questions
or register a complaint if you feel the change should not be made. For
more information on the policy around future-compatibility warnings,
see our [breaking change policy guidelines][guidelines].

[guidelines]: LINK_TO_THIS_RFC

#### What is the warning for?

*Describe the conditions that trigger the warning and how they can be
fixed. Also explain why the change was made.**

#### When will this warning become a hard error?

At the beginning of each 6-week release cycle, the Rust compiler team
will review the set of outstanding future compatibility warnings and
nominate some of them for **Final Comment Period**. Toward the end of
the cycle, we will review any comments and make a final determination
whether to convert the warning into a hard error or remove it

Issuing future compatibility warnings

The best way to handle a breaking change is to begin by issuing future-compatibility warnings. These are a special category of lint warning. Adding a new future-compatibility warning can be done as follows.

fn main() {
// 1. Define the lint in `compiler/rustc_middle/src/lint/`:
declare_lint! {
    "illegal use of foo bar baz"

// 2. Add to the list of HardwiredLints in the same file:
impl LintPass for HardwiredLints {
    fn get_lints(&self) -> LintArray {

// 3. Register the lint in `compiler/rustc_lint/src/`:
store.register_future_incompatible(sess, vec![
    FutureIncompatibleInfo {
        id: LintId::of(YOUR_ERROR_HERE),
        reference: "issue #1234", // your tracking issue here!

// 4. Report the lint:
    format!("some helper message here"));

Helpful techniques

It can often be challenging to filter out new warnings from older, pre-existing errors. One technique that has been used in the past is to run the older code unchanged and collect the errors it would have reported. You can then issue warnings for any errors you would give which do not appear in that original set. Another option is to abort compilation after the original code completes if errors are reported: then you know that your new code will only execute when there were no errors before.

Crater and

Crater is a bot that will compile all crates and many public github repos with the compiler with your changes. A report will then be generated with crates that ceased to compile with or began to compile with your changes. Crater runs can take a few days to complete.

We should always do a crater run to assess impact. It is polite and considerate to at least notify the authors of affected crates the breaking change. If we can submit PRs to fix the problem, so much the better.

Is it ever acceptable to go directly to issuing errors?

Changes that are believed to have negligible impact can go directly to issuing an error. One rule of thumb would be to check against if fewer than 10 total affected projects are found (not root errors), we can move straight to an error. In such cases, we should still make the "breaking change" page as before, and we should ensure that the error directs users to this page. In other words, everything should be the same except that users are getting an error, and not a warning. Moreover, we should submit PRs to the affected projects (ideally before the PR implementing the change lands in rustc).

If the impact is not believed to be negligible (e.g., more than 10 crates are affected), then warnings are required (unless the compiler team agrees to grant a special exemption in some particular case). If implementing warnings is not feasible, then we should make an aggressive strategy of migrating crates before we land the change so as to lower the number of affected crates. Here are some techniques for approaching this scenario:

  1. Issue warnings for subparts of the problem, and reserve the new errors for the smallest set of cases you can.
  2. Try to give a very precise error message that suggests how to fix the problem and directs users to the tracking issue.
  3. It may also make sense to layer the fix:
    • First, add warnings where possible and let those land before proceeding to issue errors.
    • Work with authors of affected crates to ensure that corrected versions are available before the fix lands, so that downstream users can use them.


After a change is made, we will stabilize the change using the same process that we use for unstable features:

  • After a new release is made, we will go through the outstanding tracking issues corresponding to breaking changes and nominate some of them for final comment period (FCP).

  • The FCP for such issues lasts for one cycle. In the final week or two of the cycle, we will review comments and make a final determination:

    • Convert to error: the change should be made into a hard error.
    • Revert: we should remove the warning and continue to allow the older code to compile.
    • Defer: can't decide yet, wait longer, or try other strategies.

Ideally, breaking changes should have landed on the stable branch of the compiler before they are finalized.

Removing a lint

Once we have decided to make a "future warning" into a hard error, we need a PR that removes the custom lint. As an example, here are the steps required to remove the overlapping_inherent_impls compatibility lint. First, convert the name of the lint to uppercase (OVERLAPPING_INHERENT_IMPLS) ripgrep through the source for that string. We will basically by converting each place where this lint name is mentioned (in the compiler, we use the upper-case name, and a macro automatically generates the lower-case string; so searching for overlapping_inherent_impls would not find much).

NOTE: these exact files don't exist anymore, but the procedure is still the same.

Remove the lint.

The first reference you will likely find is the lint definition in rustc_session/src/lint/ that resembles this:

fn main() {
declare_lint! {
    Deny, // this may also say Warning
    "two overlapping inherent impls define an item with the same name were erroneously allowed"

This declare_lint! macro creates the relevant data structures. Remove it. You will also find that there is a mention of OVERLAPPING_INHERENT_IMPLS later in the file as part of a lint_array!; remove it too.

Next, you see a reference to OVERLAPPING_INHERENT_IMPLS in rustc_lint/src/ This is defining the lint as a "future compatibility lint":

fn main() {
FutureIncompatibleInfo {
    reference: "issue #36889 <>",

Remove this too.

Add the lint to the list of removed lists.

In compiler/rustc_lint/src/ there is a list of "renamed and removed lints". You can add this lint to the list:

fn main() {
store.register_removed("overlapping_inherent_impls", "converted into hard error, see #36889");

where #36889 is the tracking issue for your lint.

Update the places that issue the lint

Finally, the last class of references you will see are the places that actually trigger the lint itself (i.e., what causes the warnings to appear). These you do not want to delete. Instead, you want to convert them into errors. In this case, the add_lint call looks like this:

fn main() {

We want to convert this into an error. In some cases, there may be an existing error for this scenario. In others, we will need to allocate a fresh diagnostic code. Instructions for allocating a fresh diagnostic code can be found here. You may want to mention in the extended description that the compiler behavior changed on this point, and include a reference to the tracking issue for the change.

Let's say that we've adopted E0592 as our code. Then we can change the add_lint() call above to something like:

fn main() {
struct_span_code_err!(self.dcx(), self.tcx.span_of_impl(item1).unwrap(), E0592, msg)

Update tests

Finally, run the test suite. These should be some tests that used to reference the overlapping_inherent_impls lint, those will need to be updated. In general, if the test used to have #[deny(overlapping_inherent_impls)], that can just be removed.

./x test

All done!

Open a PR. =)