Skip to content
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

remove an impossible branch from check_consts #71149

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 16, 2020

Conversation

RalfJung
Copy link
Member

All function calleess are either FnPtr or FnDef, so we can remove the alternative from check_consts and just make it ICE instead.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @eddyb

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Apr 14, 2020
@rust-highfive

This comment has been minimized.

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

Cc @oli-obk @ecstatic-morse

I also wondered why visit_terminator_kind exists, but no corresponding visit_statement_kind. Looks to me like for consistency we should either add the latter or, more likely, remove the former?

@@ -511,8 +511,7 @@ impl Visitor<'tcx> for Validator<'_, 'mir, 'tcx> {
return;
}
_ => {
self.check_op(ops::FnCallOther);
return;
span_bug!(terminator.source_info.span, "invalid callee of type {:?}", fn_ty,)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Extra comma on the end, heh.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, also, I don't think you need to change the method, try self.span here (courtesy of visit_source_info above).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hm, it still seems more consistent to use visit_terminator since we also use visit_statement.

(I am thinking about, in a separate PR, just removing visit_terminator_kind unless someone has a good explanation for why it should even exist.)

@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Apr 16, 2020

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 16, 2020

📌 Commit 49b745f has been approved by eddyb

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Apr 16, 2020
Dylan-DPC-zz pushed a commit to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 16, 2020
remove an impossible branch from check_consts

All function calleess are either `FnPtr` or `FnDef`, so we can remove the alternative from check_consts and just make it ICE instead.
Dylan-DPC-zz pushed a commit to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 16, 2020
remove an impossible branch from check_consts

All function calleess are either `FnPtr` or `FnDef`, so we can remove the alternative from check_consts and just make it ICE instead.
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 16, 2020
Rollup of 5 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#70566 (Don't bail out before linting in generic contexts.)
 - rust-lang#71141 (Provide better compiler output when using `?` on `Option` in fn returning `Result` and vice-versa)
 - rust-lang#71149 (remove an impossible branch from check_consts)
 - rust-lang#71179 (fix more clippy warnings)
 - rust-lang#71191 (Clean up E0520 explanation)

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@bors bors merged commit 7da24a2 into rust-lang:master Apr 16, 2020
@RalfJung RalfJung deleted the check-const-call branch April 16, 2020 21:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants