-
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
Fix delayed_good_path_bug
ice for expected diagnostics (RFC 2383)
#97718
Merged
bors
merged 1 commit into
rust-lang:master
from
xFrednet:95540-delayed-good-path-ice-for-expect
Jun 10, 2022
Merged
Fix delayed_good_path_bug
ice for expected diagnostics (RFC 2383)
#97718
bors
merged 1 commit into
rust-lang:master
from
xFrednet:95540-delayed-good-path-ice-for-expect
Jun 10, 2022
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
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
label
Jun 3, 2022
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
label
Jun 3, 2022
wesleywiser
approved these changes
Jun 9, 2022
📌 Commit 157e68d has been approved by |
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
Jun 9, 2022
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2022
…e-for-expect, r=wesleywiser Fix `delayed_good_path_bug` ice for expected diagnostics (RFC 2383) Fixes a small ICE with the `delayed_good_path_bug` check. --- r? `@wesleywiser` cc: `@eddyb` this might be interesting, since you've added a `FIXME` comment above the modified check which kind of discusses a case like this closes: rust-lang#95540 cc: rust-lang#85549
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2022
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#97718 (Fix `delayed_good_path_bug` ice for expected diagnostics (RFC 2383)) - rust-lang#97876 (update docs for `std::future::IntoFuture`) - rust-lang#97888 (Don't use __gxx_personality_v0 in panic_unwind on emscripten target) - rust-lang#97922 (Remove redundant calls to reserve in impl Write for VecDeque) - rust-lang#97927 (Do not introduce bindings for types and consts in HRTB.) - rust-lang#97937 (Fix a typo in `test/ui/hrtb/hrtb-just-for-static.rs`) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2022
…-warn, r=wesleywiser,flip1995 Support lint expectations for `--force-warn` lints (RFC 2383) Rustc has a `--force-warn` flag, which overrides lint level attributes and forces the diagnostics to always be warn. This means, that for lint expectations, the diagnostic can't be suppressed as usual. This also means that the expectation would not be fulfilled, even if a lint had been triggered in the expected scope. This PR now also tracks the expectation ID in the `ForceWarn` level. I've also made some minor adjustments, to possibly catch more bugs and make the whole implementation more robust. This will probably conflict with rust-lang#97718. That PR should ideally be reviewed and merged first. The conflict itself will be trivial to fix. --- r? `@wesleywiser` cc: `@flip1995` since you've helped with the initial review and also discussed this topic with me. 🙃 Follow-up of: rust-lang#87835 Issue: rust-lang#85549 Yeah, and that's it.
calebcartwright
pushed a commit
to calebcartwright/rustfmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2022
…wesleywiser,flip1995 Support lint expectations for `--force-warn` lints (RFC 2383) Rustc has a `--force-warn` flag, which overrides lint level attributes and forces the diagnostics to always be warn. This means, that for lint expectations, the diagnostic can't be suppressed as usual. This also means that the expectation would not be fulfilled, even if a lint had been triggered in the expected scope. This PR now also tracks the expectation ID in the `ForceWarn` level. I've also made some minor adjustments, to possibly catch more bugs and make the whole implementation more robust. This will probably conflict with rust-lang/rust#97718. That PR should ideally be reviewed and merged first. The conflict itself will be trivial to fix. --- r? `@wesleywiser` cc: `@flip1995` since you've helped with the initial review and also discussed this topic with me. 🙃 Follow-up of: rust-lang/rust#87835 Issue: rust-lang/rust#85549 Yeah, and that's it.
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.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
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 a small ICE with the
delayed_good_path_bug
check.r? @wesleywiser
cc: @eddyb this might be interesting, since you've added a
FIXME
comment above the modified check which kind of discusses a case like thiscloses: #95540
cc: #85549