Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Suggest using Arc on !Send/!Sync types - #88936
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Sep 14, 2021
r? @yaahc (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This now seems to suggest to use Arc<..::Item> instead of ..::Item. It might be useful to say consider using Arc instead of Rc: ....
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But That's exactly what this is suggesting: we didn't have an Rc here. Ideally we should be able to tell what context this error is being emitted on, but sadly rustc_on_unimplemented doesn't have that filtering today.
yaahc
commented
Oct 4, 2021
r? rust-lang/compiler |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use of Arc is not always applicable, as both Send and Sync impls for Arc<T> require T: Send + Sync. Unless we can verify T bounds here, I don't think this on clause adds any more clarity over the default note?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thats fair, but was concerned the default would be too verbose for a case where we could be more straightforward. I can change it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, we can always change this later too. r=me if you don't want to change it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Out of curiosity, what's the effect of this label clause here? I was thinking that this text would appear near the span underline, but tests indicate that nothing really changed in that particular aspect, at least.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's the primary span text.
nagisa
commented
Oct 17, 2021
@bors r+ |
bors
commented
Oct 17, 2021
📌 Commit e2cffd73c83c54c629ed88b30bb7f8a486d0b1ec has been approved by |
bors
commented
Oct 17, 2021
⌛ Testing commit e2cffd73c83c54c629ed88b30bb7f8a486d0b1ec with merge e5fb2513a52b92052d5e17ff7414a5e291ba205d... |
bors
commented
Oct 17, 2021
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
estebank
commented
Nov 23, 2021
@bors r=nagisa |
bors
commented
Nov 23, 2021
📌 Commit afd717c52628de0c39329c648e56abecf28b9e8f has been approved by |
bors
commented
Mar 5, 2022
🔒 Merge conflict This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again. How do I rebase?Assuming
You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial. Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Error message |
bors
commented
Mar 14, 2022
🔒 Merge conflict This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again. How do I rebase?Assuming
You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial. Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Error message |
bors
commented
Mar 26, 2022
🔒 Merge conflict This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again. How do I rebase?Assuming
You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial. Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Error message |
compiler-errors
commented
May 7, 2022
A bors sync made this re-approved, sorry hehe @bors r- |
Dylan-DPC
commented
Nov 21, 2022
Closing this as it is inactive |
estebank
commented
Aug 9, 2023
Squashed, rebased on top of current main and re-blessed the tests. No other changes since the prior approval. @bors r=nagisa |
bors
commented
Aug 9, 2023
bors
commented
Aug 9, 2023
| } | ||
| ObligationCauseCode::BindingObligation(item_def_id, span) | ||
| | ObligationCauseCode::ExprBindingObligation(item_def_id, span, ..) => { | ||
| if self.tcx.is_diagnostic_item(sym::Send, item_def_id) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why isn't this commented? seems like something that could use a justification
bors
commented
Aug 9, 2023
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
1 similar comment
bors
commented
Aug 9, 2023
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
rust-timer
commented
Aug 9, 2023
Finished benchmarking commit (27a43f0): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 632.651s -> 632.289s (-0.06%) |
Revert "Suggest using `Arc` on `!Send`/`!Sync` types" Closesrust-lang#114687. This is a clean revert of rust-lang#88936 + rust-lang#115210. The suggestion to Arc\<{Self}\> when Self does not implement Send is *always* wrong. rust-lang#114842 is considering a way to make a more refined suggestion.
No description provided.