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

avoid type-live-for-region obligations on dummy nodes #46226

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Nov 30, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@arielb1
Contributor

arielb1 commented Nov 23, 2017

Type-live-for-region obligations on DUMMY_NODE_ID cause an ICE, and it
turns out that in the few cases they are needed, these obligations are not
needed anyway because they are verified elsewhere.

Fixes #46069.

Beta-nominating because this is a regression for our new beta.
r? @nikomatsakis

Show outdated Hide outdated src/librustc/traits/mod.rs Outdated

arielb1 added some commits Nov 23, 2017

avoid type-live-for-region obligations on dummy nodes
Type-live-for-region obligations on DUMMY_NODE_ID cause an ICE, and it
turns out that in the few cases they are needed, these obligations are not
needed anyway because they are verified elsewhere.

Fixes #46069.
@nikomatsakis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nikomatsakis
Contributor

nikomatsakis commented Nov 28, 2017

@bors r+

@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bors

bors Nov 28, 2017

Contributor

📌 Commit ebd219a has been approved by nikomatsakis

Contributor

bors commented Nov 28, 2017

📌 Commit ebd219a has been approved by nikomatsakis

@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bors

bors Nov 29, 2017

Contributor

⌛️ Testing commit ebd219a with merge 2212da6...

Contributor

bors commented Nov 29, 2017

⌛️ Testing commit ebd219a with merge 2212da6...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 29, 2017

Auto merge of #46226 - arielb1:special-region-obligation, r=nikomatsakis
avoid type-live-for-region obligations on dummy nodes

Type-live-for-region obligations on DUMMY_NODE_ID cause an ICE, and it
turns out that in the few cases they are needed, these obligations are not
needed anyway because they are verified elsewhere.

Fixes #46069.

Beta-nominating because this is a regression for our new beta.
r? @nikomatsakis
@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bors

bors Nov 29, 2017

Contributor

💔 Test failed - status-travis

Contributor

bors commented Nov 29, 2017

💔 Test failed - status-travis

@kennytm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kennytm
Member

kennytm commented Nov 29, 2017

@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bors

bors Nov 30, 2017

Contributor

⌛️ Testing commit ebd219a with merge d6b010f...

Contributor

bors commented Nov 30, 2017

⌛️ Testing commit ebd219a with merge d6b010f...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 30, 2017

Auto merge of #46226 - arielb1:special-region-obligation, r=nikomatsakis
avoid type-live-for-region obligations on dummy nodes

Type-live-for-region obligations on DUMMY_NODE_ID cause an ICE, and it
turns out that in the few cases they are needed, these obligations are not
needed anyway because they are verified elsewhere.

Fixes #46069.

Beta-nominating because this is a regression for our new beta.
r? @nikomatsakis
@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bors

bors Nov 30, 2017

Contributor

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: nikomatsakis
Pushing d6b010f to master...

Contributor

bors commented Nov 30, 2017

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: nikomatsakis
Pushing d6b010f to master...

@bors bors merged commit ebd219a into rust-lang:master Nov 30, 2017

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
homu Test successful
Details
@WiSaGaN

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@WiSaGaN

WiSaGaN Jan 6, 2018

Contributor

Hmm, was it supposed to be backported to 1.23.0? Stable 1.23.0 fails the test in this pull request.

Contributor

WiSaGaN commented Jan 6, 2018

Hmm, was it supposed to be backported to 1.23.0? Stable 1.23.0 fails the test in this pull request.

@alexcrichton

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alexcrichton

alexcrichton Jan 10, 2018

Member

Looks like we forgot to backport to 1.23.0 (sorry about that!) so removing the beta tags.

Member

alexcrichton commented Jan 10, 2018

Looks like we forgot to backport to 1.23.0 (sorry about that!) so removing the beta tags.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment