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
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Tracking issue for release notes of #159504: Abort const-eval queries early when there are generics in the type #160263
This issue tracks the release notes text for #159504.
cc @RalfJung, @BoxyUwU -- original issue/PR authors and assignees for drafting text
See the forge.rust-lang.org chapter about release notes for an overview of how the release team makes use of these tracking issues.
Release notes text
This section should be edited to specify the correct category(s) for the change, with succinct description(s) of what changed. Some things worth considering:
Does this need an additional compat notes section?
Was this a libs stabilization that should have additional headers to list new APIs under Stabilized APIs and Const Stabilized APIs?
# Compatibility Notes-[Abort const-eval when there are generics in the type of the value being produced](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/159504)
Tip
Use the previous releases for inspiration on how to write the release notes text and which categories to pick.
Release blog section
If this change is notable enough for inclusion in the blog post then this section should be edited to contain a draft for the blog post. Otherwise leave it empty.
Note
If a blog post section is required the release-blog-post label should be added (@rustbot label +release-blog-post) to this issue as otherwise it may be missed by the release team.
Is this in any way observable? wasn't sure whether it would be and when going through the list of all merged PRs I would rather err on the side of marking things incorrectly
I don't think #159504 changed anything... #156977 fixed the underlying ICE and may have also broken some really obscure code out there but I am not sure yet (the crater run is still in the queue).
Activity
RalfJung commentedon Jul 31, 2026
@lcnr why did you label this with relnotes?
lcnr commentedon Jul 31, 2026
Is this in any way observable? wasn't sure whether it would be and when going through the list of all merged PRs I would rather err on the side of marking things incorrectly
lcnr commentedon Jul 31, 2026
I think it doesn't? In which case, feel free to close this again
RalfJung commentedon Jul 31, 2026
I don't think #159504 changed anything... #156977 fixed the underlying ICE and may have also broken some really obscure code out there but I am not sure yet (the crater run is still in the queue).
BoxyUwU commentedon Sep 4, 2026
I'll keep it in compat notes just in case 🤷♀️