don't do Sized and other return type checks on RPIT's real type
#97431
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
rustbot
added
the
T-compiler
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ Yea, that's the only intended effect of my change, thanks! |
1 similar comment
|
@bors r+ Yea, that's the only intended effect of my change, thanks! |
|
📌 Commit 126ef8e has been approved by |
1 similar comment
|
📌 Commit 126ef8e has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
oli-obk
added
beta-nominated
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 31, 2022
…piler-errors Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#89685 (refactor: VecDeques Iter fields to private) - rust-lang#97172 (Optimize the diagnostic generation for `extern unsafe`) - rust-lang#97395 (Miri call ABI check: ensure type size+align stay the same) - rust-lang#97431 (don't do `Sized` and other return type checks on RPIT's real type) - rust-lang#97555 (Source code page: line number click adds `NaN`) - rust-lang#97558 (Fix typos in comment) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rustbot
added
the
beta-accepted
ehuss
pushed a commit
to ehuss/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2022
don't do `Sized` and other return type checks on RPIT's real type Fixes an ICE where we're doing `Sized` check against the RPIT's real type, instead of against the opaque type. This differs from what we're doing in MIR typeck, which causes ICE rust-lang#97226. This regressed in rust-lang#96516 -- this adjusts that fix to be a bit more conservative. That PR was backported and thus the ICE is also present in stable. Not sure if it's worth to beta and/or stable backport, probably not the latter but I could believe the former. r? `@oli-obk` cc: another attempt to fix this ICE rust-lang#97413. I believe this PR addresses the root cause.
Merged
ehuss
removed
the
beta-nominated
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 24, 2022
[beta] Beta backports * Remove the unused-#[doc(hidden)] logic from the unused_attributes lint rust-lang#98336 * debuginfo: Fix NatVis for Rc and Arc with unsized pointees. rust-lang#98137 * Revert "remove num_cpus dependency" in rustc and update cargo rust-lang#97911 * Update LLVM submodule rust-lang#97690 * Revert rust-lang#96682. rust-lang#97636 * don't do Sized and other return type checks on RPIT's real type rust-lang#97431 * Temporarily disable submodule archive downloads. rust-lang#98423
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.
Fixes an ICE where we're doing
Sizedcheck against the RPIT's real type, instead of against the opaque type. This differs from what we're doing in MIR typeck, which causes ICE #97226.This regressed in #96516 -- this adjusts that fix to be a bit more conservative. That PR was backported and thus the ICE is also present in stable. Not sure if it's worth to beta and/or stable backport, probably not the latter but I could believe the former.
r? @oli-obk
cc: another attempt to fix this ICE #97413. I believe this PR addresses the root cause.
Fixes #97226