-
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
Rollup of 3 pull requests #94471
Rollup of 3 pull requests #94471
Conversation
11 changes in d6cdde584a1f15ea086bae922e20fd27f7165431..3d6970d50e30e797b8e26b2b9b1bdf92dc381f34 2022-02-22 19:55:51 +0000 to 2022-02-28 19:29:07 +0000: - rust-lang/cargo#10395 - rust-lang/cargo#10425 - rust-lang/cargo#10428 - rust-lang/cargo#10388 - rust-lang/cargo#10167 - rust-lang/cargo#10429 - rust-lang/cargo#10426 - rust-lang/cargo#10372 - rust-lang/cargo#10420 - rust-lang/cargo#10416 - rust-lang/cargo#10417
…-once, r=davidtwco Check method input expressions once If the user mistakenly forgets to wrap their method args in a tuple, then the compiler tries to check that types within the tuple match the expression args. This means we call `check_expr` once within this diagnostic code, so when we check the expr once again in `demand_compatible`, we attempt to apply expr adjustments twice, leading to ICEs. This PR attempts to fix this by skipping the expression type check in `demand_compatible` if we have detected an method arg mismatch at all. This does lead to a single UI test regressing slightly, due to a diagnostic disappearing, though I don't know if it is generally meaningful to even raise an type error after noting that the argument count is incorrect in a function call, since the user might be providing (in-context) meaningless expressions to the wrong method. I can adjust this to be a bit more targeted (to just skip checking exprs in `demand_compatible` in the tuple case) if this UI test regression is a problem. fixes rust-lang#94334 cc rust-lang#94291 Also drive-by fixup of `.node_type(expr.hir_id)` to `.expr_ty(expr)`, since that method exists.
Update cargo 11 changes in d6cdde584a1f15ea086bae922e20fd27f7165431..3d6970d50e30e797b8e26b2b9b1bdf92dc381f34 2022-02-22 19:55:51 +0000 to 2022-02-28 19:29:07 +0000: - rust-lang/cargo#10395 - rust-lang/cargo#10425 - rust-lang/cargo#10428 - rust-lang/cargo#10388 - rust-lang/cargo#10167 - rust-lang/cargo#10429 - rust-lang/cargo#10426 - rust-lang/cargo#10372 - rust-lang/cargo#10420 - rust-lang/cargo#10416 - rust-lang/cargo#10417
@bors r+ rollup=never p=3 |
📌 Commit 6aab954 has been approved by |
⌛ Testing commit 6aab954 with merge f41075f31b9281b23b6f0874bcf9bf484ad7ff0c... |
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
|
@bors retry |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Finished benchmarking commit (6e5a6ff): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant results. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression |
Apparently bors didnt add the rust analyzer changes to the rollup..?? |
Successful merges:
Failed merges:
r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup