Arbitrary self types v2: explain test. #136124
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
The purpose of this test wasn't obvious. Add a comment.
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
r? compiler-errors @bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Zalathar
added a commit
to Zalathar/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2025
…-errors Arbitrary self types v2: explain test. The purpose of this test wasn't obvious, as `@traviscross` noted. Add a comment. Confession: although this test was added to demonstrate this particular corner-case, I can no longer reproduce the original problem, even if I adjust `rustc` to do the "wrong" thing. I have spent several hours trying to adjust the case to trigger the "faulty" behavior with no success. This test may therefore not be as useful as it originally was. But it still seems worthwhile retaining as a regression test that we don't break things in these quirky circumstances. Ideally we'd find a new test which tests this behavior but I've failed to come up with one. r? `@traviscross`
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2025
Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#133151 (Trim extra whitespace in fn ptr suggestion span) - rust-lang#133929 (Remove -Zinline-in-all-cgus and clean up tests/codegen-units/) - rust-lang#135886 (Document purpose of closure in from_fn.rs more clearly) - rust-lang#135961 (Fix 2/4 tests skipped by opt-dist) - rust-lang#136104 (Add mermaid graphs of NLL regions and SCCs to polonius MIR dump) - rust-lang#136124 (Arbitrary self types v2: explain test.) - rust-lang#136153 (Locate asan-odr-win with other sanitizer tests) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2025
…-errors Arbitrary self types v2: explain test. The purpose of this test wasn't obvious, as ``@traviscross`` noted. Add a comment. Confession: although this test was added to demonstrate this particular corner-case, I can no longer reproduce the original problem, even if I adjust `rustc` to do the "wrong" thing. I have spent several hours trying to adjust the case to trigger the "faulty" behavior with no success. This test may therefore not be as useful as it originally was. But it still seems worthwhile retaining as a regression test that we don't break things in these quirky circumstances. Ideally we'd find a new test which tests this behavior but I've failed to come up with one. r? ``@traviscross``
This was referenced Jan 28, 2025
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2025
…iaskrgr Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#135869 (Make docs for AtomicUsize::from_mut platform-independent) - rust-lang#135892 (-Znext-solver: "normalize" signature before checking it mentions self in `deduce_closure_signature`) - rust-lang#136055 (Implement MIR const trait stability checks) - rust-lang#136066 (Pass spans to `perform_locally_in_new_solver`) - rust-lang#136071 ([Clippy] Add vec_reserve & vecdeque_reserve diagnostic items) - rust-lang#136124 (Arbitrary self types v2: explain test.) - rust-lang#136149 (Flip the `rustc-rayon`/`indexmap` dependency order) - rust-lang#136173 (Update comments and sort target_arch in c_char_definition) - rust-lang#136178 (Update username in build helper example) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#136124 - adetaylor:test-comment, r=compiler-errors Arbitrary self types v2: explain test. The purpose of this test wasn't obvious, as ```@traviscross``` noted. Add a comment. Confession: although this test was added to demonstrate this particular corner-case, I can no longer reproduce the original problem, even if I adjust `rustc` to do the "wrong" thing. I have spent several hours trying to adjust the case to trigger the "faulty" behavior with no success. This test may therefore not be as useful as it originally was. But it still seems worthwhile retaining as a regression test that we don't break things in these quirky circumstances. Ideally we'd find a new test which tests this behavior but I've failed to come up with one. r? ```@traviscross```
15 tasks
90 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
The purpose of this test wasn't obvious, as @traviscross noted. Add a comment.
Confession: although this test was added to demonstrate this particular corner-case, I can no longer reproduce the original problem, even if I adjust
rustcto do the "wrong" thing. I have spent several hours trying to adjust the case to trigger the "faulty" behavior with no success. This test may therefore not be as useful as it originally was. But it still seems worthwhile retaining as a regression test that we don't break things in these quirky circumstances. Ideally we'd find a new test which tests this behavior but I've failed to come up with one.r? @traviscross