Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
don't touch closure_substs.parent_substs() in borrowck - #100375
Conversation
aab2c8a to
2b9a220Comparespastorino
commented
Aug 10, 2022
r? types |
bors
commented
Sep 10, 2022
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #98559) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Now that ReEmpty has removed, does this PR work?
PureWhiteWu
commented
Sep 15, 2022
Hi, is there any progress on this bugfix? |
apiraino
commented
Oct 26, 2022
... They bite!
2b9a220 to
4f32381Comparejackh726
commented
Nov 7, 2022
I went ahead and rebased this. It's not clear we should land this at this point. The only behavior difference I see is to the |
jackh726
commented
Nov 7, 2022
Let me go ahead and nominate. |
lcnr
commented
Jan 18, 2023
unnominating with the expectation that the PR is now unnecessary as the added tests already seem to pass. If not feel free to update the PR description and renominate 🤔 |
jackh726
commented
Feb 18, 2023
@oli-obk can you look at |
oli-obk
commented
Feb 21, 2023
looks good, but the now-passing parts should be pulled out into a separate |
Dylan-DPC
commented
May 15, 2023
@aliemjay any updates on this? |
JohnCSimon
commented
Dec 17, 2023
Ping from triage: I'm closing this due to inactivity, Please reopen when you are ready to continue with this. @rustbot label: +S-inactive |
... They bite!
An alternative implementation of #98835 that doesn't add any additional constraints on
closure_substs.parent_substsin order to not change the behavior of opaque type inference. See #100372.See the comment on the test for more details.
Fixes#100267.
r? types