Remove rustdoc-specific is_import field from HIR#51288
Merged
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom Jun 4, 2018
Merged
Conversation
Member
|
@bors r+ |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit 7bf908a has been approved by |
Collaborator
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 2, 2018
Remove rustdoc-specific is_import field from HIR Fixes #47100. I believe that there is no need to check for the name being the same, as this part of rustdoc seems to be strictly interested in exploring "public modules." Re-exports from the same module cannot visit another module; and, re-exports cannot export items with a greater visibility than that item declares. Therefore, I think this code is either sufficient, or in fact does more than is necessary, depending on whether rustdoc cares about the re-export itself. r? @eddyb
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
7bf908a to
0aa7784
Compare
Member
Author
|
I can't reproduce locally; repushed a rebased version. @bors r=eddyb |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit 0aa7784 has been approved by |
Collaborator
|
⌛ Testing commit 0aa778427d8ea8840b46f862e42e0a5b00c9e784 with merge ecca3d484c50817a4db80ad28c9f8e8edc56ce75... |
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Member
Collaborator
|
⌛ Testing commit 0aa778427d8ea8840b46f862e42e0a5b00c9e784 with merge 3998a03c521b5b10d938de48f5c0b8f24135db30... |
Collaborator
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
Contributor
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Member
Author
|
@eddyb I'm getting the impression that Any thoughts on what I should do in addition to the existing code? It's also not clear to me that we need a condition -- wouldn't we just visit more than necessary if there wasn't a condition? |
Member
|
@Mark-Simulacrum It wouldn't be listed in the exports if it were private, would it? |
eddyb
reviewed
Jun 3, 2018
src/librustdoc/visit_lib.rs
Outdated
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, you have the condition inverted - !is_import means it was originally defined in that module, whereas d != def_id.index means the parent isn't the module itself, which means it was originally defined elsewhere.
0aa7784 to
19e0b7d
Compare
Member
Author
|
@bors r=eddyb Inverted the condition. |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit 19e0b7d has been approved by |
Mark-Simulacrum
added a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 4, 2018
…=eddyb Remove rustdoc-specific is_import field from HIR Fixes rust-lang#47100. I believe that there is no need to check for the name being the same, as this part of rustdoc seems to be strictly interested in exploring "public modules." Re-exports from the same module cannot visit another module; and, re-exports cannot export items with a greater visibility than that item declares. Therefore, I think this code is either sufficient, or in fact does more than is necessary, depending on whether rustdoc cares about the re-export itself. r? @eddyb
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 4, 2018
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - #51288 (Remove rustdoc-specific is_import field from HIR) - #51299 (const fn integer operations) - #51317 (Allow enabling incremental via config.toml) - #51323 (Generate br for all two target SwitchInts) - #51326 (Various minor slice iterator cleanups) - #51329 (Remove the unused `-Z trans-time-graph` flag.) Failed merges:
Collaborator
Collaborator
|
💥 Test timed out |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #47100.
I believe that there is no need to check for the name being the same, as this
part of rustdoc seems to be strictly interested in exploring "public modules."
Re-exports from the same module cannot visit another module; and, re-exports
cannot export items with a greater visibility than that item declares.
Therefore, I think this code is either sufficient, or in fact does more than
is necessary, depending on whether rustdoc cares about the re-export itself.
r? @eddyb