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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

const-in-pattern: test that the PartialEq impl does not need to be const #135064

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 4, 2025
Merged

const-in-pattern: test that the PartialEq impl does not need to be const #135064

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 4, 2025

Conversation

RalfJung
Copy link
Member

@RalfJung RalfJung commented Jan 3, 2025

Fixes #119398 by adding a test.

@compiler-errors is there some place in the code where we could add a comment saying "as a backcompat hack, here we only require PartialEq and not const PartialEq"?

r? @compiler-errors

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jan 3, 2025
@RalfJung RalfJung force-pushed the const-in-pat-partial-eq-not-const branch from d8e53a6 to dbf3f22 Compare January 3, 2025 09:57
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

is there some place in the code where we could add a comment saying "as a backcompat hack, here we only require PartialEq and not const PartialEq"?

@RalfJung: You'd probably know best where to put that? I assume it would be at the same place we check that T: PartialEq holds for match scrutinees. Like next to that predicate_must_hold call or whatever we do, it'd be fine to note "and we don't check T: ~const PartialEq holds because of backcompat and <insert some other comment about how it's probably fine and doesn't cause ICEs since we structurally decompose matches anyways>".

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

Anyways r=me with or without that comment

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

RalfJung commented Jan 3, 2025

Hm I thought there was something somewhere else, since ir was some PR of course that fixed the behavior here...

@RalfJung RalfJung force-pushed the const-in-pat-partial-eq-not-const branch from dbf3f22 to b806dcc Compare January 3, 2025 15:08
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 3, 2025

Some changes occurred in match checking

cc @Nadrieril

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member Author

RalfJung commented Jan 3, 2025

@bors r=compiler-errors

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 3, 2025

📌 Commit b806dcc has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 3, 2025
@matthiaskrgr matthiaskrgr mentioned this pull request Jan 4, 2025
Merged
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 4, 2025
@bors
Auto merge of rust-lang#135095 - matthiaskrgr:rollup-tmgxckq, r=matth…
f17cf74 
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 7 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#133964 (core: implement `bool::select_unpredictable`)
 - rust-lang#135001 (Allow using self-contained LLD in bootstrap)
 - rust-lang#135055 (Report impl method has stricter requirements even when RPITIT inference gets in the way)
 - rust-lang#135064 (const-in-pattern: test that the PartialEq impl does not need to be const)
 - rust-lang#135066 (bootstrap: support `./x check run-make-support`)
 - rust-lang#135069 (remove unused function params)
 - rust-lang#135084 (Update carrying_mul_add test to tolerate `nuw`)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 966a5be into rust-lang:master Jan 4, 2025
6 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.86.0 milestone Jan 4, 2025
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 4, 2025
@rust-timer
Unrolled build for rust-lang#135064
b7a0c81 
Rollup merge of rust-lang#135064 - RalfJung:const-in-pat-partial-eq-not-const, r=compiler-errors

const-in-pattern: test that the PartialEq impl does not need to be const

Fixes rust-lang#119398 by adding a test.

`@compiler-errors`  is there some place in the code where we could add a comment saying "as a backcompat hack, here we only require `PartialEq` and not `const PartialEq`"?

r? `@compiler-errors`
@RalfJung RalfJung deleted the const-in-pat-partial-eq-not-const branch January 6, 2025 14:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@compiler-errors compiler-errors

Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.86.0
4 participants
@RalfJung @compiler-errors @rustbot @bors