Skip to content
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.

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

ir: Prefer using known semantic parents #1049

Conversation

fitzgen
Copy link
Member

@fitzgen fitzgen commented Sep 29, 2017

When choosing a parent ID for a type that we are parsing, prefer known semantic parents over the provided parent ID. It seems like we shouldn't even be passing explicit parent IDs around (they're often buggy), and instead should expand the known_semantic_parent infrastructure, but I'll leave that to some future work.

Fixes #1048

r? @emilio

When choosing a parent ID for a type that we are parsing, prefer known semantic
parents over the provided parent ID. It seems like we shouldn't even be passing
explicit parent IDs around (they're often buggy), and instead should expand the
`known_semantic_parent` infrastructure, but I'll leave that to some future work.

Fixes rust-lang#1048
@highfive
Copy link

warning Warning warning

  • These commits modify unsafe code. Please review it carefully!

@emilio
Copy link
Contributor

emilio commented Oct 1, 2017

@bors-servo r+

Thanks!

@bors-servo
Copy link

📌 Commit 64d73c2 has been approved by emilio

@bors-servo
Copy link

⌛ Testing commit 64d73c2 with merge e9169b3...

bors-servo pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2017
…rations, r=emilio

ir: Prefer using known semantic parents

When choosing a parent ID for a type that we are parsing, prefer known semantic parents over the provided parent ID. It seems like we shouldn't even be passing explicit parent IDs around (they're often buggy), and instead should expand the `known_semantic_parent` infrastructure, but I'll leave that to some future work.

Fixes #1048

r? @emilio
@bors-servo
Copy link

💔 Test failed - status-travis

@ctaggart
Copy link

ctaggart commented Oct 2, 2017

Is this a valid test failure or does CI just need to run again?

@fitzgen
Copy link
Member Author

fitzgen commented Oct 2, 2017

Is this a valid test failure or does CI just need to run again?

Restarted. Unsure why it was cancelled...

@bors-servo
Copy link

☀️ Test successful - status-travis
Approved by: emilio
Pushing e9169b3 to master...

@bors-servo bors-servo merged commit 64d73c2 into rust-lang:master Oct 2, 2017
@bors-servo bors-servo mentioned this pull request Oct 2, 2017
4 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants