Skip to content
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

convert AdtDef::destructor to on-demand #40178

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 3, 2017

Conversation

arielb1
Copy link
Contributor

@arielb1 arielb1 commented Mar 1, 2017

This removes the Cell from AdtDef. Also, moving destructor validity
checking to on-demand (forced during item-type checking) ensures that
invalid destructors can't cause ICEs.

Fixes #38868.
Fixes #40132.

r? @eddyb

This removes the Cell from AdtDef. Also, moving destructor validity
checking to on-demand (forced during item-type checking) ensures that
invalid destructors can't cause ICEs.

Fixes rust-lang#38868.
Fixes rust-lang#40132.
@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Mar 1, 2017

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 1, 2017

📌 Commit e294fd5 has been approved by eddyb

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 3, 2017

⌛ Testing commit e294fd5 with merge 042728e...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 3, 2017
convert AdtDef::destructor to on-demand

This removes the `Cell` from `AdtDef`. Also, moving destructor validity
checking to on-demand (forced during item-type checking) ensures that
invalid destructors can't cause ICEs.

Fixes #38868.
Fixes #40132.

r? @eddyb
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 3, 2017

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: eddyb
Pushing 042728e to master...

@bors bors merged commit e294fd5 into rust-lang:master Mar 3, 2017
@bors bors mentioned this pull request Mar 3, 2017
/// invoked even when there are lifetimes in the type-structure of
/// `adt` that do not strictly outlive the adt value itself.
/// (This allows programs to make cyclic structures without
/// resorting to unasfe means; see RFCs 769 and 1238).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

*unsafe

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants