Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Pre-expansion gate most of the things - #65742
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Add test for rejecting `trait A: B1 = B2;`. Also test rejection of `trait A: = B;`.
petrochenkov
commented
Oct 24, 2019
Contributor
@bors r=davidtwco |
bors
commented
Oct 24, 2019
Collaborator
📌 Commit 15a6c09 has been approved by |
bors
commented
Oct 24, 2019
Collaborator
🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 1000, this pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened |
Centril added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 25, 2019
…r=davidtwco Pre-expansion gate most of the things This is a subset of rust-lang#64672. A crater run has already been done and this PR implements conclusions according to rust-lang#64672 (comment). r? @davidtwco cc @petrochenkov
bors added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 25, 2019
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - #62959 (Add by-value iterator for arrays ) - #65390 (Add long error explanation for E0576) - #65408 (reorder config.toml.example options and add one missing option) - #65414 (ignore uninhabited non-exhaustive variant fields) - #65666 (Deprecated proc_macro doesn't trigger warning on build library) - #65742 (Pre-expansion gate most of the things) - #65747 (Adjust the tracking issue for `untagged_unions`.) - #65763 (Changed APIT with explicit generic args span to specific arg spans) - #65775 (Fix more `ReEmpty` ICEs) Failed merges: - #65519 (trait-based structural match implementation) r? @ghost
RalfJung
commented
Oct 30, 2019
Member
This PR introduced an (IMO serious) breaking change (see #65860 for more): This no longer compiles: #![cfg_attr(nightly, feature(decl_macro))]#[cfg(nightly)]pub macro Default($item:item){}Usually we are able to use conditional compilation to control use of nightly features, that seems broken now. |
eddyb added a commit
to eddyb/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 31, 2019
bors added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 2, 2019
Partially revert the early feature-gatings added in #65742. The intent here is to address #65860 ASAP (in time for beta, ideally), while leaving as much of #65742 around as possible, to make it easier to re-enable later. Therefore, I've only kept the parts of the revert that re-add the old (i.e. non-early) feature-gating checks that were removed in #65742, and the test reverts. I've disabled the new early feature-gating checks from #65742 entirely for now, but it would be easy to put them behind a `-Z` flag, or turn them into warnings, which would allow us to keep tests for both the early and late versions of the checks - assuming that's desirable. cc @nikomatsakis@Mark-Simulacrum@Centril
3 tasks
17 tasks
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
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.
This is a subset of #64672. A crater run has already been done and this PR implements conclusions according to #64672 (comment).
r? @davidtwco
cc @petrochenkov