Open
Conversation
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
fee1-dead
requested changes
Mar 13, 2026
compiler/rustc_next_trait_solver/src/solve/assembly/structural_traits.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It has duplicates that are no different from it anymore (rejected in the early check about const closures in normal code) and the difference in covered code paths doesn't exist anymore.
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
Collaborator
|
Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use |
Contributor
Author
|
@bors r=fee1-dead |
Contributor
rust-bors
bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Tracking issue: #106003
Best reviewed commit-by-commit
The old solver can't handle
for<'a> |x: &'a()| ()closures in const contexts, but that feature is unstable itself, so we can just leave it to the next solver to handle.We need a lot more tests, we're testing the bare minimum of success and failure paths right now.
r? @fee1-dead