You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Auto merge of #122466 - matthiaskrgr:rollup-hh9mjj4, r=matthiaskrgr
Rollup of 11 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #104353 (Add CStr::bytes iterator)
- #114038 (unix time module now return result)
- #119676 (rustdoc-search: search types by higher-order functions)
- #120699 (Document `TRACK_DIAGNOSTIC` calls.)
- #121899 (Document how removing a type's field can be bad and what to do instead)
- #121940 (Mention Register Size in `#[warn(asm_sub_register)]`)
- #122397 (Various cleanups around the const eval query providers)
- #122405 (Add methods to create StableMIR constant)
- #122416 (Various style improvements to `rustc_lint::levels`)
- #122440 (const-eval: organize and extend tests for required-consts)
- #122461 (fix unsoundness in Step::forward_unchecked for signed integers)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
calling a function that requires unavailable target features: {$unavailable_feats}
376
376
377
-
const_eval_undefined_behavior =
378
-
it is undefined behavior to use this value
379
-
380
-
const_eval_undefined_behavior_note =
381
-
The rules on what exactly is undefined behavior aren't clear, so this check might be overzealous. Please open an issue on the rustc repository if you believe it should not be considered undefined behavior.
382
-
383
377
const_eval_uninhabited_enum_variant_read =
384
378
read discriminant of an uninhabited enum variant
385
379
const_eval_uninhabited_enum_variant_written =
@@ -434,6 +428,12 @@ const_eval_validation_expected_raw_ptr = expected a raw pointer
434
428
const_eval_validation_expected_ref = expected a reference
435
429
const_eval_validation_expected_str = expected a string
436
430
431
+
const_eval_validation_failure =
432
+
it is undefined behavior to use this value
433
+
434
+
const_eval_validation_failure_note =
435
+
The rules on what exactly is undefined behavior aren't clear, so this check might be overzealous. Please open an issue on the rustc repository if you believe it should not be considered undefined behavior.
436
+
437
437
const_eval_validation_front_matter_invalid_value = constructing invalid value
438
438
const_eval_validation_front_matter_invalid_value_with_path = constructing invalid value at {$path}
0 commit comments