Merged
Conversation
In `Bounds::predicates()`, move the implicit `Sized` predicate to the end of the generated list. This means that if there is an explicit `Sized` bound, it will be checked first, and any resulting diagnostics will have a more useful span.
The checking variant ensures that the offset required is not larger than 12 bits - hence we wouldn't ever need the upper 12 bits.
…bited enum variant
…stebank move implicit `Sized` predicate to end of list In `Bounds::predicates()`, move the implicit `Sized` predicate to the end of the generated list. This means that if there is an explicit `Sized` bound, it will be checked first, and any resulting diagnostics will have a more useful span. Fixes rust-lang#85998, at least partially. ~~Based on rust-lang#85979, but only the last 2 commits are new for this pull request.~~ (edit: rebased) A full fix would need to deal with where-clauses, and that seems difficult. Basically, predicates are being collected in multiple stages, and there are two places where implicit `Sized` predicates can be inserted: once for generic parameters, and once for where-clauses. I think this insertion is happening too early, and we should actually do it only at points where we collect all of the relevant trait bounds for a type parameter. I could use some help interpreting the changes to the stderr output. It looks like reordering the predicates changed some diagnostics that don't obviously have anything to do with `Sized` bounds. Possibly some error reporting code is making assumptions about ordering of predicates? The diagnostics for src/test/ui/derives/derives-span-Hash-*.rs seem to have improved, no longer pointing at the type parameter identifier, but src/test/ui/type-alias-impl-trait/generic_duplicate_param_use9.rs became less verbose for some reason. I also ran into an instance of rust-lang#84970 while working on this, but I kind of expected that could happen, because I'm reordering predicates. I can open a separate issue on that if it would be helpful. ``@estebank`` this seems likely to conflict (slightly?) with your work on rust-lang#85947; how would you like to resolve that?
…ark-Simulacrum Add a strange test for `unsafe_code` lint. The current behavior is a little surprising to me. I'm not sure whether people would change it, but at least let me document the current behavior with a test. I learnt about this from the [totally-speedy-transmute](https://docs.rs/totally-speedy-transmute) crate. cc rust-lang#10599 the original implementation pr.
add dedicated error variant for writing the discriminant of an uninhabited enum variant This is conceptually different from hitting an `Unreachable` terminator. Also add some sanity check making sure we don't write discriminants of things that do not have discriminants. r? ``@oli-obk``
Suggest Box::pin when Pin::new is used instead This fixes an incorrect diagnostic. **Based on rust-lang#89390**; only the last commit is specific to this PR. "Ignore whitespace changes" also helps here.
…anieu Use non-checking TLS relocation in aarch64 asm! sym test. The checking variant ensures that the offset required is not larger than 12 bits - hence we wouldn't ever need the upper 12 bits. It's unlikely to ever fail in this small test but this is technically correct. This was noticed incidentally when we found that LLD doesn't support the `tprel_lo12` relocation, even though LLVM can apparently generate it when using `-mtls-size=12`.
… r=GuillaumeGomez add long explanation for E0183 Addresses rust-lang#61137
…lacrum Remove unused dependencies from rustc_const_eval
Member
Author
|
@bors r+ p=7 rollup=never |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit e45c222 has been approved by |
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
Collaborator
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
This was referenced Oct 15, 2021
Collaborator
|
Finished benchmarking commit (72d6606): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant changes. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
11 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Successful merges:
Sizedpredicate to end of list #86011 (move implicitSizedpredicate to end of list)unsafe_codelint. #89821 (Add a strange test forunsafe_codelint.)Failed merges:
r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup