Conversation
|
|
|
Dupe of #133995 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is no longer testing the issue - can we change this to another one that still shows the errors? or just remove this test completely (or just have const_trait_impl removed in this test)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This also means
rust/compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/check_consts/ops.rs
Lines 281 to 316 in 9972ebf
f693135 to
9933442
Compare
|
@bors r+ rollup |
Make `PartialEq` a `const_trait` r? `@fee1-dead` or `@compiler-errors` something generally useful but also required for rust-lang#142789
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - #142493 (rework `#[naked]` attribute parser) - #142636 (bootstrap.example.toml: use less contextual format) - #142822 (Make `PartialEq` a `const_trait`) - #142892 (Fix ICE on debug builds where lints are delayed on the crate root) - #142904 (notify me when rdg is touched) Failed merges: - #142827 (Move error code explanation removal check into tidy) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
| )] | ||
| #[rustc_diagnostic_item = "PartialEq"] | ||
| #[const_trait] | ||
| #[rustc_const_unstable(feature = "const_trait_impl", issue = "67792")] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this library trait guarded by a language feature and its tracking issue?
It doesn't even match the attribute on the impls, which is quite confusing (I think the impl attributes are completely ignored then?)
r? @fee1-dead or @compiler-errors
something generally useful but also required for #142789