-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Stabilize const_refs_to_static
#129759
Stabilize const_refs_to_static
#129759
Conversation
rustbot has assigned @petrochenkov. Use |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Looks like FCP in #128183 (comment) has completed yesterday. |
The implementation seems trivial, so I can review and approve, but if you want someone from the const eval group to do that, feel free to reassign. |
This also needs a rebase and a fix for the error index. |
c100748
to
8fb32f6
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
8fb32f6
to
c25bec4
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
c25bec4
to
13b168c
Compare
Some changes occurred in diagnostic error codes |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
13b168c
to
41dc5d3
Compare
@rustbot ready
|
…iaskrgr Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#129687 (Implement RFC3137 trim-paths sysroot changes - take 2) - rust-lang#129759 (Stabilize `const_refs_to_static`) - rust-lang#130329 (Reorder stack spills so that constants come later.) - rust-lang#130845 (Utf8Chunks: add link to Utf8Chunk) - rust-lang#130846 (Revert Break into the debugger on panic (129019)) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors r- It looks like there might be a couple more tests that need blessing, #130854 (comment) |
84a43d6
to
3fe6d8f
Compare
update tests fix bitwidth-sensitive stderr output use build-fail for asm tests
3fe6d8f
to
1576a6d
Compare
@rustbot ready
cc @traviscross |
@bors r+ rollup=iffy |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (4428a05): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Max RSS (memory usage)This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. CyclesResults (primary -3.0%, secondary 6.2%)This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 773.662s -> 772.536s (-0.15%) |
make type-check-4 asm tests about non-const expressions These tests recently got changed in rust-lang#129759. I asked the PR author to make the tests read from a `static mut` (rather than just making them "pass"), but I now think that was a mistake: previously the tests failed because the const was not a valid const expression, after the PR they failed because the const failed to evaluate. So this PR restores the tests to "fail because the const is not a valid const expression". That can be done in a target-independent way so I unified the x86 and aarch64 tests into one. Cc `@oli-obk` as the original [author](rust-lang@0d88631) of these tests -- not sure if you still remember what they were intended to test.
make type-check-4 asm tests about non-const expressions These tests recently got changed in rust-lang#129759. I asked the PR author to make the tests read from a `static mut` (rather than just making them "pass"), but I now think that was a mistake: previously the tests failed because the const was not a valid const expression, after the PR they failed because the const failed to evaluate. So this PR restores the tests to "fail because the const is not a valid const expression". That can be done in a target-independent way so I unified the x86 and aarch64 tests into one. Cc `@oli-obk` as the original [author](rust-lang@0d88631) of these tests -- not sure if you still remember what they were intended to test.
Rollup merge of rust-lang#130895 - RalfJung:asm-tests, r=nnethercote make type-check-4 asm tests about non-const expressions These tests recently got changed in rust-lang#129759. I asked the PR author to make the tests read from a `static mut` (rather than just making them "pass"), but I now think that was a mistake: previously the tests failed because the const was not a valid const expression, after the PR they failed because the const failed to evaluate. So this PR restores the tests to "fail because the const is not a valid const expression". That can be done in a target-independent way so I unified the x86 and aarch64 tests into one. Cc `@oli-obk` as the original [author](rust-lang@0d88631) of these tests -- not sure if you still remember what they were intended to test.
Close #128183
Tracked by #119618
cc @nikomatsakis
Meanwhile, I am cooking a sub-section in the language reference.