-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
don't touch closure_substs.parent_substs()
in borrowck
#100375
Conversation
aab2c8a
to
2b9a220
Compare
r? types |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #98559) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
// FIXME: This is a troublesome back-compat hack. See #100372. | ||
.unwrap_or(infcx.tcx.lifetimes.re_root_empty), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Now that ReEmpty has removed, does this PR work?
Hi, is there any progress on this bugfix? |
... They bite!
2b9a220
to
4f32381
Compare
I went ahead and rebased this. It's not clear we should land this at this point. The only behavior difference I see is to the |
Let me go ahead and nominate. |
unnominating with the expectation that the PR is now unnecessary as the added tests already seem to pass. If not feel free to update the PR description and renominate 🤔 |
@oli-obk can you look at |
looks good, but the now-passing parts should be pulled out into a separate |
@aliemjay any updates on this? |
Ping from triage: I'm closing this due to inactivity, Please reopen when you are ready to continue with this. @rustbot label: +S-inactive |
... They bite!
An alternative implementation of #98835 that doesn't add any additional constraints on
closure_substs.parent_substs
in order to not change the behavior of opaque type inference. See #100372.See the comment on the test for more details.
Fixes #100267.
r? types