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.

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

[beta] Temporary fix for metadata decoding for struct constructors #37078

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 14, 2016

Conversation

petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor

@petrochenkov petrochenkov commented Oct 10, 2016

I'll try to do something better for nightly. Ideally, metadata lookup functions should "just work" for constructor ids.

cc #37026
r? @brson

Backport of #37095

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

warning Warning warning

  • Pull requests are usually filed against the master branch for this repo, but this one is against beta. Please double check that you specified the right target!

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@petrochenkov to clarify, is this fixed on nightly?

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor Author

@alexcrichton
not yet

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Ah ok, we typically avoid backports unless the fix is on nightly (as the master branch has more CI testing right now), so perhaps we could hold off until the fix is on nightly?

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor Author

Okay, there's no hurry. I'm not sure the nightly fix will be backportable to beta, but let's see.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Hm yeah that's a good point. I figure we can see what it looks like first to ensure it passes tests everywhere and then we can selectively backport.

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2016
Temporary fix for metadata decoding for struct constructors

Same as #37078, but for nightly.
Ideally, metadata lookup functions should "just work" for constructor ids, but this fixes the issue as well.

Fixes #37026
r? @alexcrichton
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Ok, now that #37095 has landed, it looks like this isn't quite an exact cherry-pick, but @petrochenkov just to confirm that's intended, right?

@petrochenkov
Copy link
Contributor Author

Exact cherry pick is not possible, unfortunately. #37095 is based on this large commit that exists only on nightly. This PR is the closest approximation.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Ok sounds good to me! To follow the process let's wait for #37095 to get tagged with beta-accepted now (cc @nikomatsakis)

@brson brson merged commit 8cc5c84 into rust-lang:beta Oct 14, 2016
@petrochenkov petrochenkov deleted the beta branch March 16, 2017 19:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants