-
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
Make unchecked_{add,sub,mul} inherent methods unstably const #85096
Conversation
That's just our unintuitive way of saying that stable const fn can call those intrinsics I think we should have an issue for this feature gate and reference it instead of using "none" Other than that, this PR lgtm |
ea3cc82
to
380bbe8
Compare
Added tracking issue for both the methods and the const-ness; figured it didn't make sense to have separate issues for them. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
from the CI failure I'm guessing we already have a tracking issue for the methods' feature gate? |
Nope, it was a method on |
ad09169
to
e6b12c8
Compare
Nice! @bors r+ |
📌 Commit e6b12c8 has been approved by |
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#85050 (Fix suggestions for missing return type lifetime specifiers) - rust-lang#85075 (Improve "panic message is not a string literal" warning) - rust-lang#85096 (Make unchecked_{add,sub,mul} inherent methods unstably const) - rust-lang#85112 (ensure failing promoteds in const/static bodies are handled correctly) - rust-lang#85146 (Provide io::Seek::rewind) - rust-lang#85147 (:arrow_up: rust-analyzer) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
The intrinsics are marked as being stably const (even though they're not stable by nature of being intrinsics), but the currently-unstable inherent versions are not marked as const. This fixes this inconsistency. Split out of #85017,
r? @oli-obk