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
Actually parse async gen blocks correctly #118891
Conversation
ff5a047
to
1d78ce6
Compare
So does this mean |
|
Ah, that makes sense :) I was wondering if it had something to do with the late addition of Anyway, the PR looks good! @bors r+ |
@bors rollup |
…kingjubilee Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#118858 (Remove dead codes in core) - rust-lang#118864 (Fix alignment passed down to LLVM for simd_masked_load) - rust-lang#118872 (Add rustX check to codeblock attributes lint) - rust-lang#118873 (fix `waker_getters` tracking issue number) - rust-lang#118884 (NFC: simplify merging of two vecs) - rust-lang#118885 (clippy::complexity fixes) - rust-lang#118886 (Clean up variables in `search.js`) - rust-lang#118887 (Typo) - rust-lang#118889 (more clippy::complexity fixes) - rust-lang#118891 (Actually parse async gen blocks correctly) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Rollup merge of rust-lang#118891 - compiler-errors:async-gen-blocks, r=eholk Actually parse async gen blocks correctly 1. I got the control flow in `parse_expr_bottom` messed up, and obviously forgot a test for `async gen`, so we weren't actually ever parsing it correctly. 2. I forgot to gate the span for `async gen {}`, so even if we did parse it, we wouldn't have correctly denied it in `cfg(FALSE)`. r? eholk
parse_expr_bottom
messed up, and obviously forgot a test forasync gen
, so we weren't actually ever parsing it correctly.async gen {}
, so even if we did parse it, we wouldn't have correctly denied it incfg(FALSE)
.r? eholk