Rollup of 4 pull requests #121509
Closed
Rollup of 4 pull requests #121509
Conversation
This file contains 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
When refining covspans, we don't specifically care which ones represent closures; we just want to know which ones represent "holes" that should be carved out of other spans and then discarded. (Closures are currently the only source of hole spans, but in the future we might want to also create hole spans for nested items and inactive `#[cfg(..)]` regions.)
Signed-off-by: cui fliter <imcusg@gmail.com>
…iler-errors mark `min_exhaustive_patterns` as complete This is step 1 and 2 of my [proposal](rust-lang#119612 (comment)) to move `min_exhaustive_patterns` forward. The vast majority of in-tree use cases of `exhaustive_patterns` are covered by `min_exhaustive_patterns`. There are a few cases that still require `exhaustive_patterns` in tests and they're all behind references. r? `@ghost`
…mease Don't ICE on anonymous struct in enum variant Fixes rust-lang#121446 Computing `adt_def` for the anon struct calls `adt_def` on the parent to find its repr. If the parent is a non-item (e.g. an enum variant) we should have already emitted at least one error, so we just use the repr of the anonymous struct to avoid an ICE. cc `@frank-king`
coverage: Rename `is_closure` to `is_hole` Extracted from rust-lang#121433, since I was having second thoughts about some of the other changes bundled in that PR, but these changes are still fine. --- When refining covspans, we don't specifically care which ones represent closures; we just want to know which ones represent "holes" that should be carved out of other spans and then discarded. (Closures are currently the only source of hole spans, but in the future we might want to also create hole spans for nested items and inactive `#[cfg(..)]` regions.) `@rustbot` label +A-code-coverage
remove repetitive words
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup=never p=4 |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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:
min_exhaustive_patternsas complete #120742 (markmin_exhaustive_patternsas complete)is_closuretois_hole#121492 (coverage: Renameis_closuretois_hole)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup