Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 31 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upAdd a debug_assert to Vec::set_len #57589
Conversation
rust-highfive
assigned
Mark-Simulacrum
Jan 14, 2019
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
label
Jan 14, 2019
scottmcm
added
the
T-libs
label
Jan 14, 2019
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
rust-highfive
assigned
alexcrichton
and unassigned
Mark-Simulacrum
Jan 14, 2019
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@bors: r+ |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
|
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
and removed
S-waiting-on-review
labels
Jan 14, 2019
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 14, 2019
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 14, 2019
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 14, 2019
bors
merged commit 1fd971c
into
rust-lang:master
Jan 15, 2019
scottmcm
deleted the
scottmcm:vec-set_len-debug_assert
branch
Jan 15, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
scottmcm commentedJan 14, 2019
Following the precedent of #52972, which found llogiq/bytecount#42.
(This may well make a test fail; let's see what Travis says.)