-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Enforce stability of const fn in promoteds #50909
Conversation
The job Click to expand the log.
I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
c409546
to
0a94f78
Compare
// We are in a normal function | ||
// with a turned off feature gate. We can still call the function | ||
// but we can't promote it | ||
self.qualif = Qualif::NOT_CONST; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is this inside the if
? IMO the flags should be as general as possible, so we can make sure less problems show up again. Also, shouldn't this be something like (EDIT: ah, no, below you can see it's also that; the overwrite is because the argument qualifications and the function call result are unrelated and the former have to be cleared anyway)self.add(Qualif::NOT_CONST)
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Doesn't make much difference as the other branch errors, but seems more consistent indeed
@bors try (we'll likely need a check-only crater run on this) |
Enforce stability of const fn in promoteds r? @eddyb what's going on here? Why do we have two promoted computation algorithms?
In case of regressions we could just stabilize the relevant const fns together with fixing the stability hole |
☀️ Test successful - status-travis |
Ping @rust-lang/infra can you start a check-only crater run? |
Crater run (check-only) started. |
Hi @oli-obk (crater requester), @eddyb (PR reviewer)! Crater results are at: http://cargobomb-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/pr-50909/index.html. 'Blacklisted' crates (spurious failures etc) can be found here. If you see any spurious failures not on the list, please make a PR against that file. (interested observers: Crater is a tool for testing the impact of changes on the crates.io ecosystem. You can find out more at the repo if you're curious) |
Looks clean! (spurious regression) r=me after rebase |
329fd90
to
a11f785
Compare
@bors r=eddyb |
📌 Commit a11f785 has been approved by |
@bors p=1 (backporting to beta) |
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
r? @eddyb
fixes #50901
what's going on here? Why do we have two promoted computation algorithms?