Skip to content

Conversation

estebank
Copy link
Contributor

@estebank estebank commented Sep 28, 2025

"running analysis passes on this crate" -> "running analysis passes on crate foo"

This message is displayed in cycle errors in particular, and in some cases without any spans or any other identifiable information to determine which dependency introduced the cycle.

Address #74380, but we still need a test for that case in particular.

"running analysis passes on this crate" -> "running analysis passes on crate `foo`"

This message is displayed in cycle errors in particular, and in some cases without any spans or any other identifiable information to determine which dependency introduced the cycle.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 28, 2025

This PR modifies tests/ui/issues/. If this PR is adding new tests to tests/ui/issues/,
please refrain from doing so, and instead add it to more descriptive subdirectories.

@rustbot 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 Sep 28, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 28, 2025

r? @nnethercote

rustbot has assigned @nnethercote.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

LL | const FOO: usize = FOO;
| ^^^
= note: ...which again requires simplifying constant for the type system `FOO`, completing the cycle
= note: cycle used when running analysis passes on this crate
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why does is this line removed?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The rest of the PR looks fine, but this is a worry, because this test looks very similar to the other tests but it is changed in a different way.

error: aborting due to 1 previous error

For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0391`.
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0391`.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is the file-ending newline removed?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To be perfectly honest: not the faintest idea why my changes affect this test at all 😵

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants