Replace expr_visitor with for_each_expr
#8762
Conversation
|
r? @giraffate (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #8779) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Jarcho
force-pushed
the
visitor
branch
3 times, most recently
from
e95d3f2
to
9cfba1a
Compare
|
Great. The compiler broke... Looks like rust-lang/rust#99866. |
|
LGTM. Will merge after the next sync. |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #9447) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
Huh. Forgot about it. Can you rebase and then r+ yourself, if CI passes? |
Jarcho
force-pushed
the
visitor
branch
2 times, most recently
from
cecb4ea
to
823a859
Compare
|
Looks like this is still broken. rust-lang/rust#101410 is a possible fix. |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #9458) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
Narrowed the issue down to something with let-chains mir opt levels. Pretty good match with rust-lang/#99852. Just added a workaround until the rustc bug is fixed. @bors r+ |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test |
This is a minor change which uses
ControlFlowrather than a boolean. This also runs the visitor rather than returning the visitor, which results in a small readability win as well.changelog: None