Skip to content

Merge method, type and const object safety checks #112318

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

Merged

Conversation

oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

@oli-obk oli-obk commented Jun 5, 2023

cc @spastorino and @compiler-errors on the first commit. I believe it to be correct, as the field is only Some for assoc types, so just checking the field without checking the assoc kind to be Type is fine.

The second commit avoids going through all associated items thrice and just goes over all of them once, running the object safety checks per assoc item kind.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jun 5, 2023

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @cjgillot (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

  • @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
  • @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

@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 Jun 5, 2023
@spastorino
Copy link
Member

@oli-obk the first commit is perfectly right. Those are left overs from when we've added the method to item.

Copy link
Member

@compiler-errors compiler-errors left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

r=me nits or not

@compiler-errors compiler-errors self-assigned this Jun 5, 2023
@oli-obk oli-obk force-pushed the assoc_ty_sized_bound_for_object_safety branch from 25c5083 to 58972d1 Compare June 5, 2023 16:39
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Jun 5, 2023

@bors r=compiler-errors rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 5, 2023

📌 Commit 58972d1 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 Jun 5, 2023
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2023
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 6 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#112081 (Avoid ICE on `#![doc(test(...)]` with literal parameter)
 - rust-lang#112196 (Resolve vars in result from `scrape_region_constraints`)
 - rust-lang#112303 (Normalize in infcx instead of globally for `Option::as_deref` suggestion)
 - rust-lang#112316 (Ensure space is inserted after keyword in `unused_delims`)
 - rust-lang#112318 (Merge method, type and const object safety checks)
 - rust-lang#112322 (Don't mention `IMPLIED_BOUNDS_ENTAILMENT` if signatures reference error)

Failed merges:

 - rust-lang#112251 (rustdoc: convert `if let Some()` that always matches to variable)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 44acf79 into rust-lang:master Jun 6, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.72.0 milestone Jun 6, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
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
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants