-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13k
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
Remove lang feature for type ascription (since it's a lib feature now) #127630
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
labels
Jul 11, 2024
compiler-errors
changed the title
Remove lang feature for type ascription
Remove lang feature for type ascription (since it's a lib feature now)
Jul 11, 2024
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
compiler-errors
force-pushed
the
type-ascription
branch
from
July 12, 2024 00:40
dda9cc7
to
a36fcc8
Compare
Some changes occurred in compiler/rustc_codegen_gcc |
chenyukang
approved these changes
Jul 12, 2024
@bors r=chenyukang |
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
Jul 14, 2024
@bors rollup |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 14, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#127273 (Fix `DebugParser`.) - rust-lang#127587 (Report usage of lib features in ast validation) - rust-lang#127592 (doc: Suggest `str::repeat` over `iter::repeat().take().collect()`) - rust-lang#127630 (Remove lang feature for type ascription (since it's a lib feature now)) - rust-lang#127711 (Add regression test for a gce + effects ICE) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 14, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#127630 - compiler-errors:type-ascription, r=chenyukang Remove lang feature for type ascription (since it's a lib feature now) It's not necessary since it's a library feature now, via the type ascription macro. We can't (and shouldn't) register it as a removed feature since I think that would give "this feature has been removed" errors even for people using the macro (well, I'm pretty sure, though I didn't check). r? `@Nilstrieb`
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
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.
It's not necessary since it's a library feature now, via the type ascription macro. We can't (and shouldn't) register it as a removed feature since I think that would give "this feature has been removed" errors even for people using the macro (well, I'm pretty sure, though I didn't check).
r? @Nilstrieb