make type-check-4 asm tests about non-const expressions #130895
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
r? @nnethercote rustbot has assigned @nnethercote. Use |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2024
make type-check-4 asm tests about non-const expressions These tests recently got changed in rust-lang#129759. I asked the PR author to make the tests read from a `static mut` (rather than just making them "pass"), but I now think that was a mistake: previously the tests failed because the const was not a valid const expression, after the PR they failed because the const failed to evaluate. So this PR restores the tests to "fail because the const is not a valid const expression". That can be done in a target-independent way so I unified the x86 and aarch64 tests into one. Cc `@oli-obk` as the original [author](rust-lang@0d88631) of these tests -- not sure if you still remember what they were intended to test.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r=nnethercote |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#130895 (make type-check-4 asm tests about non-const expressions) - rust-lang#131057 (Reject leading unsafe in `cfg!(...)` and `--check-cfg`) - rust-lang#131060 (Drop conditionally applied cargo `-Zon-broken-pipe=kill` flags to fix stage 1 cargo rebuilds) - rust-lang#131061 (replace manual verbose checks with `Config::is_verbose`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#130895 - RalfJung:asm-tests, r=nnethercote make type-check-4 asm tests about non-const expressions These tests recently got changed in rust-lang#129759. I asked the PR author to make the tests read from a `static mut` (rather than just making them "pass"), but I now think that was a mistake: previously the tests failed because the const was not a valid const expression, after the PR they failed because the const failed to evaluate. So this PR restores the tests to "fail because the const is not a valid const expression". That can be done in a target-independent way so I unified the x86 and aarch64 tests into one. Cc `@oli-obk` as the original [author](rust-lang@0d88631) of these tests -- not sure if you still remember what they were intended to test.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
These tests recently got changed in #129759. I asked the PR author to make the tests read from a
static mut(rather than just making them "pass"), but I now think that was a mistake: previously the tests failed because the const was not a valid const expression, after the PR they failed because the const failed to evaluate.So this PR restores the tests to "fail because the const is not a valid const expression". That can be done in a target-independent way so I unified the x86 and aarch64 tests into one.
Cc @oli-obk as the original author of these tests -- not sure if you still remember what they were intended to test.