const-in-pattern: test that the PartialEq impl does not need to be const #135064
Conversation
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
RalfJung
force-pushed
the
const-in-pat-partial-eq-not-const
branch
from
d8e53a6 to
dbf3f22
Compare
@RalfJung: You'd probably know best where to put that? I assume it would be at the same place we check that |
|
Anyways r=me with or without that comment |
|
Hm I thought there was something somewhere else, since ir was some PR of course that fixed the behavior here... |
RalfJung
force-pushed
the
const-in-pat-partial-eq-not-const
branch
from
dbf3f22 to
b806dcc
Compare
|
Some changes occurred in match checking cc @Nadrieril |
|
@bors r=compiler-errors |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
…iaskrgr Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#133964 (core: implement `bool::select_unpredictable`) - rust-lang#135001 (Allow using self-contained LLD in bootstrap) - rust-lang#135055 (Report impl method has stricter requirements even when RPITIT inference gets in the way) - rust-lang#135064 (const-in-pattern: test that the PartialEq impl does not need to be const) - rust-lang#135066 (bootstrap: support `./x check run-make-support`) - rust-lang#135069 (remove unused function params) - rust-lang#135084 (Update carrying_mul_add test to tolerate `nuw`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Rollup merge of rust-lang#135064 - RalfJung:const-in-pat-partial-eq-not-const, r=compiler-errors const-in-pattern: test that the PartialEq impl does not need to be const Fixes rust-lang#119398 by adding a test. `@compiler-errors` is there some place in the code where we could add a comment saying "as a backcompat hack, here we only require `PartialEq` and not `const PartialEq`"? r? `@compiler-errors`
Fixes #119398 by adding a test.
@compiler-errors is there some place in the code where we could add a comment saying "as a backcompat hack, here we only require
PartialEqand notconst PartialEq"?r? @compiler-errors