Skip to content

Revert "skip double negation in const eval" #34497

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 30, 2016
Merged

Revert "skip double negation in const eval" #34497

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 30, 2016

Conversation

oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

@oli-obk oli-obk commented Jun 27, 2016

This reverts commit 735c018.

fixes #34395

The original commit was based on a mis-understanding of the overflowing literal lint.

This needs to be ported to beta.

r? @eddyb

@eddyb eddyb added the beta-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. label Jun 27, 2016
@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Jun 27, 2016

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 27, 2016

📌 Commit b8f9c88 has been approved by eddyb

Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2016
@Manishearth
Rollup merge of rust-lang#34497 - oli-obk:double_negation, r=eddyb
2e893ea 
Revert "skip double negation in const eval"

This reverts commit 735c018.

fixes rust-lang#34395

The original commit was based on a mis-understanding of the overflowing literal lint.

This needs to be ported to beta.

r? @eddyb
@Manishearth Manishearth mentioned this pull request Jun 29, 2016
Merged
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2016
@bors
Auto merge of #34552 - Manishearth:rollup, r=Manishearth
c2b56fb 
Rollup of 11 pull requests

- Successful merges: #34355, #34446, #34459, #34460, #34467, #34495, #34497, #34499, #34513, #34536, #34542
- Failed merges:
@bors bors merged commit b8f9c88 into rust-lang:master Jun 30, 2016
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

cc @rust-lang/compiler

thoughts on backporting? Would love to include this in the next beta we should produce fairly soon

@nrc
Copy link
Member

nrc commented Jul 1, 2016

+1 for packport

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Discussed with compiler team in email as well and sentiment was that this is small enough and important enough to backport, accepting for backport.

@alexcrichton alexcrichton added the beta-accepted Accepted for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. label Jul 3, 2016
@alexcrichton alexcrichton mentioned this pull request Jul 3, 2016
Merged
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Note that to backport this the patch didn't apply cleanly, so I just re-ran git revert 735c018.

@oli-obk would you mind double checking acf3ccd to ensure that it's what's expected?

@alexcrichton alexcrichton removed the beta-nominated Nominated for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel. label Jul 3, 2016
@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Jul 3, 2016

Lgtm, the failure was most likely due to 16bit support missing. There was a conflict during reverting in this pr

@oli-obk oli-obk deleted the double_negation branch July 3, 2016 21:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@eddyb eddyb

Labels
beta-accepted Accepted for backporting to the compiler in the beta channel.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

rustc accepts "---128i8" as a valid constant
5 participants
@oli-obk @eddyb @bors @alexcrichton @nrc