Skip to content
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

Batch up all plugin breaking changes #32767

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Apr 6, 2016
Merged

Conversation

Manishearth
Copy link
Member

#32688 already landed so we should get this into the same nightly.

cc #31645

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @jroesch

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ p=100 force

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 6, 2016

📌 Commit 0b24c5d has been approved by Manishearth

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 6, 2016

⌛ Testing commit 0b24c5d with merge faca0e2...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 6, 2016

💔 Test failed - auto-win-gnu-32-opt-rustbuild

@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Apr 6, 2016

@bors retry

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member Author

@bors retry force

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member Author

@bors force

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 6, 2016

⌛ Testing commit 0b24c5d with merge c91993d...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 6, 2016

💔 Test failed - auto-linux-musl-64-opt

 The AST part of rust-lang#31937

Unlike HIR, AST still uses `Option` for field names because parser can't know field indexes reliably due to constructions like
```
struct S(#[cfg(false)] u8, u8); // The index of the second field changes from 1 during parsing to 0 after expansion.
```
and I wouldn't like to put the burden of renaming fields on expansion passes and syntax extensions.

plugin-[breaking-change] cc rust-lang#31645
r? @Manishearth
 r? @nikomatsakis

Conflicts:
	src/librustc_save_analysis/lib.rs
	src/libsyntax/ast_util.rs
@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Apr 6, 2016

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 6, 2016

📌 Commit 552af51 has been approved by eddyb

@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Apr 6, 2016

@bors force

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 6, 2016

⌛ Testing commit 552af51 with merge 943ec3b...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 6, 2016
Batch up all plugin breaking changes

#32688 already landed so we should get this into the same nightly.

cc #31645
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 6, 2016

💔 Test failed - auto-mac-32-opt

@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Apr 6, 2016

Huh, that doesn't make any sense, tidy passes everywhere else.

@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Apr 6, 2016

@bors retry

@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Apr 6, 2016

@bors force

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants