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

ir: We can't guarantee the type to be in the item map while propagating AlreadyResolved #1128

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 31, 2017

Conversation

emilio
Copy link
Contributor

@emilio emilio commented Oct 31, 2017

The item may come from a recursive check down the stack, and as we say there:

Unchecked because we haven't finished this type yet.

Fixes #1127

@emilio
Copy link
Contributor Author

emilio commented Oct 31, 2017

r? @pepyakin or @fitzgen

Copy link
Member

@fitzgen fitzgen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 thanks!

@fitzgen
Copy link
Member

fitzgen commented Oct 31, 2017

@bors-servo r+

@bors-servo
Copy link

📌 Commit 9601c1b has been approved by fitzgen

@bors-servo
Copy link

⌛ Testing commit 9601c1b with merge 64183c8...

bors-servo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2017
ir: We can't guarantee the type to be in the item map while propagating AlreadyResolved

The item may come from a recursive check down the stack, and as we say there:

> Unchecked because we haven't finished this type yet.

Fixes #1127
@bors-servo
Copy link

💔 Test failed - status-travis

@emilio
Copy link
Contributor Author

emilio commented Oct 31, 2017

@bors-servo retry

  • Seems like two travis jobs timed out

@bors-servo
Copy link

⌛ Testing commit 9601c1b with merge 0fb4ad6...

bors-servo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2017
ir: We can't guarantee the type to be in the item map while propagating AlreadyResolved

The item may come from a recursive check down the stack, and as we say there:

> Unchecked because we haven't finished this type yet.

Fixes #1127
@emilio
Copy link
Contributor Author

emilio commented Oct 31, 2017

Oh, it looks like this testcase is timing out on llvm 4.0, fun... brb

…ng AlreadyResolved.

The item may come from a recursive check down the stack, and as we say there:

> Unchecked because we haven't finished this type yet.

Fixes rust-lang#1127
@emilio
Copy link
Contributor Author

emilio commented Oct 31, 2017

I'm punting on landing the test-case because I just verified this allows me to update bindgen in mozilla-central, but I plan to look at it (filed #1129).

@emilio
Copy link
Contributor Author

emilio commented Oct 31, 2017

@bors-servo r=fitzgen

@bors-servo
Copy link

📌 Commit 1554388 has been approved by fitzgen

@bors-servo
Copy link

⌛ Testing commit 1554388 with merge 55cf63c...

bors-servo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 31, 2017
ir: We can't guarantee the type to be in the item map while propagating AlreadyResolved

The item may come from a recursive check down the stack, and as we say there:

> Unchecked because we haven't finished this type yet.

Fixes #1127
@bors-servo
Copy link

☀️ Test successful - status-travis
Approved by: fitzgen
Pushing 55cf63c to master...

@bors-servo bors-servo merged commit 1554388 into rust-lang:master Oct 31, 2017
@emilio emilio deleted the not-yet-type branch October 31, 2017 19:06
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.

None yet

5 participants