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

Rollup of 12 pull requests #90137

Closed
wants to merge 33 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

JohnTitor
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

tmiasko and others added 30 commits October 12, 2021 13:27
The support for runtime multi-threading was removed from LLVM. Calls to
`LLVMStartMultithreaded` became no-ops equivalent to checking if LLVM
was compiled with support for threads http://reviews.llvm.org/D4216.
It's a visitor property rather than something that needs to be determined at runtime
The const qualification was so far performed before the promotion and
the implementation assumed that it will never encounter a promoted.

With `const_precise_live_drops` feature, checking for live drops is
delayed until after drop elaboration, which in turn runs after
promotion. so the assumption is no longer true. When evaluating
`NeedsNonConstDrop` it is now possible to encounter promoteds.

Use type base qualification for the promoted. It is a sound
approximation in general, and in the specific case of promoteds and
`NeedsNonConstDrop` it is precise.
Now explicitly says negative value.
rustbot doesn't allow unauthenticated users to set `I-nominated`; apply
the same permissions to the new `I-*nominated` labels.
Previously, it wasn't clear whether "This could include" was referring
to logic errors, or undefined behaviour. Tweak wording to clarify this
sentence does not relate to UB.
…rk-Simulacrum

Clarify undefined behaviour in binary heap, btree and hashset docs

Previously, it wasn't clear whether "This could include" was referring to logic errors, or undefined behaviour. Tweak wording to clarify this sentence does not relate to UB.
Cleanup LLVM multi-threading checks

The support for runtime multi-threading was removed from LLVM. Calls to
`LLVMStartMultithreaded` became no-ops equivalent to checking if LLVM
was compiled with support for threads http://reviews.llvm.org/D4216.
Update E0637 description to mention `&` w/o an explicit lifetime name

Deal with rust-lang#89824 (comment). Another solution would be splitting the error code into two as (I think) it's a bit unclear to users why they have the same error code.
Change `Duration::[try_]from_secs_{f32, f64}` underflow error

The error message now says that it was a negative value.

Fixes rust-lang#89913.
rustc_ast: Turn `MutVisitor::token_visiting_enabled` into a constant

It's a visitor property rather than something that needs to be determined at runtime
…i-obk

Fix const qualification when executed after promotion

The const qualification was so far performed before the promotion and
the implementation assumed that it will never encounter a promoted.

With `const_precise_live_drops` feature, checking for live drops is
delayed until after drop elaboration, which in turn runs after
promotion. so the assumption is no longer true. When evaluating
`NeedsNonConstDrop` it is now possible to encounter promoteds.

Use type base qualification for the promoted. It is a sound
approximation in general, and in the specific case of promoteds and
`NeedsNonConstDrop` it is precise.

Fixes rust-lang#89938.
…crum

Add a regression test for issue-83479

Add a regression test for rust-lang#83479 (comment), but not close the issue, see rust-lang#83479 (comment).
Add some tests for const_generics_defaults

I think this covers some of the stuff required for stabilisation report, some of these tests are probably covering stuff we already have but it can't hurt to have more :)

r? ``@lcnr``
Add test for issue rust-lang#78561

Adds test for and closes rust-lang#78561 which previously crashed compiler.
…=Mark-Simulacrum

triagebot: Treat `I-*nominated` like `I-nominated`

rustbot doesn't allow unauthenticated users to set `I-nominated`; apply the same permissions to the new `I-*nominated` labels.
@rustbot rustbot added the rollup A PR which is a rollup label Oct 21, 2021
@JohnTitor
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ p=12 rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 21, 2021

📌 Commit e394367 has been approved by JohnTitor

@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Oct 21, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 21, 2021

⌛ Testing commit e394367 with merge 9b1c97951ad2c0e7b46bd0a05b59cb38066d9cd2...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 21, 2021

💥 Test timed out

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Oct 21, 2021
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

@JohnTitor
Copy link
Member Author

@bors retry

@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 Oct 21, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 22, 2021

⌛ Testing commit e394367 with merge 3c594100d143e1630ba07a7e7c34984092b86856...

@bors bors mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 22, 2021

💥 Test timed out

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Oct 22, 2021
@JohnTitor
Copy link
Member Author

Uh, no luck? Re-created a bigger one.

@JohnTitor JohnTitor closed this Oct 22, 2021
@JohnTitor JohnTitor deleted the rollup-a5d6sl8 branch October 22, 2021 07:22
@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.