-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Make unchecked_{add,sub,mul} inherent methods unstably const #85096
Conversation
That's just our unintuitive way of saying that stable const fn can call those intrinsics I think we should have an issue for this feature gate and reference it instead of using "none" Other than that, this PR lgtm |
ea3cc82
to
380bbe8
Compare
Added tracking issue for both the methods and the const-ness; figured it didn't make sense to have separate issues for them. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
from the CI failure I'm guessing we already have a tracking issue for the methods' feature gate? |
Nope, it was a method on |
ad09169
to
e6b12c8
Compare
Nice! @bors r+ |
📌 Commit e6b12c8 has been approved by |
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#85050 (Fix suggestions for missing return type lifetime specifiers) - rust-lang#85075 (Improve "panic message is not a string literal" warning) - rust-lang#85096 (Make unchecked_{add,sub,mul} inherent methods unstably const) - rust-lang#85112 (ensure failing promoteds in const/static bodies are handled correctly) - rust-lang#85146 (Provide io::Seek::rewind) - rust-lang#85147 (:arrow_up: rust-analyzer) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
The intrinsics are marked as being stably const (even though they're not stable by nature of being intrinsics), but the currently-unstable inherent versions are not marked as const. This fixes this inconsistency. Split out of #85017,
r? @oli-obk