Skip to content

Conversation

@mu001999
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #109529

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 24, 2023

r? @oli-obk

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@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 Mar 24, 2023
@mu001999
Copy link
Contributor Author

r? @scottmcm

@rustbot rustbot assigned scottmcm and unassigned oli-obk Mar 24, 2023
@leonardo-m
Copy link

This suggestion seems OK, but keep in mind that using ..= has performance consequences (it often/sometimes gives slower code).

@mu001999 mu001999 requested a review from WaffleLapkin March 24, 2023 12:14
@WaffleLapkin WaffleLapkin self-assigned this Mar 24, 2023
@mu001999 mu001999 requested a review from WaffleLapkin March 24, 2023 17:03
@mu001999
Copy link
Contributor Author

mu001999 commented Mar 24, 2023

@WaffleLapkin Something weird is that the first symbol + is omitted if multi suggestions are also used for expressions with parentheses:

error: range endpoint is out of range for `u8`
  --> $DIR/deny-overflowing-literals.rs:5:14
   |
LL |     for _ in 0..256u8 {}
   |              ^^^^^^^^
   |
help: use an inclusive range instead
   |
LL |     for _ in 0..=255u8 {}
   |                 ~~~~~

I finally chose to emits suggestions separately. Luckily, the test results look good.

Please let me know if the behavior above is known or unexpected. Thanks! ;)

@scottmcm
Copy link
Member

scottmcm commented Mar 24, 2023

I'm not familiar enough with lint patterns to be a good reviewer here, so let's say

r? @WaffleLapkin

since they commented already.

EDIT: good job, self -- I should look at to whom it's actually assigned, not just read the r? comments 🤦

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Mar 24, 2023

Could not assign reviewer from: WaffleLapkin.
User(s) WaffleLapkin are either the PR author or are already assigned, and there are no other candidates.
Use r? to specify someone else to assign.

@scottmcm scottmcm removed their assignment Mar 24, 2023
@mu001999

This comment was marked as resolved.

@WaffleLapkin
Copy link
Member

This looks fine to me, modulo // run-rustfix (I thought I added the comment ages ago but apparently no? anyway..,.)

@mu001999 mu001999 requested a review from WaffleLapkin March 29, 2023 02:07
@WaffleLapkin
Copy link
Member

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Mar 29, 2023

📌 Commit dde26b3 has been approved by WaffleLapkin

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 Mar 29, 2023
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 29, 2023
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 8 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#107387 (Use random `HashMap` keys on Hermit)
 - rust-lang#109511 (Make `EvalCtxt`'s `infcx` private)
 - rust-lang#109554 (Suggest ..= when someone tries to create an overflowing range)
 - rust-lang#109675 (Do not consider elaborated projection predicates for objects in new solver)
 - rust-lang#109693 (Remove ~const from alloc)
 - rust-lang#109700 (Lint against escape sequences in Fluent files)
 - rust-lang#109716 (Move `mir::Field` → `abi::FieldIdx`)
 - rust-lang#109726 (rustdoc: Don't strip crate module)

Failed merges:

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 83573a3 into rust-lang:master Mar 30, 2023
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.70.0 milestone Mar 30, 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.

Suggest ..= when someone tries to create an overflowing range

7 participants