code suggestions for non-shorthand field pattern, no-mangle lints#45232
code suggestions for non-shorthand field pattern, no-mangle lints#45232bors merged 4 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
src/librustc_lint/builtin.rs
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: "try making it public"
src/librustc_lint/builtin.rs
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
drive by fix: can you remove the function names? Most diagnostics pointing to a definition don't mention the name again.
src/librustc_lint/builtin.rs
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same here (wrt name repetition in diagnostics)
src/librustc_lint/builtin.rs
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this should be it.span.with_hi(it.span.lo())
ac9c719 to
7b51b58
Compare
|
(force-push addresses @oli-obk's comments) |
7b51b58 to
64020f0
Compare
|
(and the ensuing compile-fail failures reported by our mutual friend Travis) |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #45283) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
R=me once the merge conflict is fixed |
This comment made sense when it was introduced in fbef241. It does not make sense in its current context, where the referred-to guard is no longer present. This being an item under the fabulous metabug rust-lang#44366.
We also edit the lint description to clarify that this is different from the struct field init shorthand.
At reviewer's suggestion, we remove the function/static name from the main lint message. While we're correspondingly adjusting the expectations of a compile-fail test, we remove an obsolete FIXME comment, another quantum of progress towards resolving the fabulous metabug rust-lang#44366.
64020f0 to
8e6ed12
Compare
|
(and @bors's treachery) |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 8e6ed12 has been approved by |
|
⌛ Testing commit 8e6ed12 with merge a2a91d797d872a0c98d9c632965e26d2ce9e8f19... |
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
|
Unrelated and spurious? Segfault looks bad though |
Details |
code suggestions for non-shorthand field pattern, no-mangle lints continuing in the spirit of #44942  r? @estebank
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
|
@bors retry blame Travis. |
code suggestions for non-shorthand field pattern, no-mangle lints continuing in the spirit of #44942  r? @estebank
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
|
@bors retry
|
code suggestions for non-shorthand field pattern, no-mangle lints continuing in the spirit of #44942  r? @estebank
|
It looks to me that travis/mac will timeout again :-/ |
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
continuing in the spirit of #44942
r? @estebank