-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
beta-backport of provenance-related CTFE changes #101320
Conversation
Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine cc @rust-lang/miri Some changes occurred to the CTFE / Miri engine cc @rust-lang/miri |
r? @cjgillot (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
I suppose I don't know what I want, and I'm trying to get enough information to decide what I want. I don't want 1.64 to silently break the world; it seems obvious that we do have that, at least with respect to #99923. 👍 I also don't want 1.64 to loudly break the the world. Our crater runs indicate that we probably have that too. 👍 I don't want to re-litigate RFC rust-lang/rfcs#3016, (as some have suggested would be a an implication of reverting #97684 ), in a sudden/rash manner.
I am tempted to suggest that we go ahead and do exactly what @RalfJung would prefer here: land just the first commit in beta. That way, we have the second commit in our back pocket if it turns out that 1.64.0 does cause significant breakage, then we do a quick 1.64.1 point release that adds the second commit. (But I'm assuming we are very unlikely to go down that path, so I'm not going to further muse on the implications of that choice on versions 1.65 and above.) |
r? @pnkfelix |
baf42e1
to
c7f8e68
Compare
All right, I removed the 2nd commit. |
@bors r+ |
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
This is all part of dealing with #99923.
The first commit backports the effects of #101101. @pnkfelix asked for this and it turned out to be easy, so I think this is uncontroversial.
The second commit effectively repeats #99965, which un-does the effects of #97684 and therefore means #99923 does not apply to the beta branch. I honestly don't think we should do this; the sentiment in #99923 was that we should go ahead with the change but improve diagnostics. But @pnkfelix seemed to request such a change so I figured I would offer the option.
I'll be on vacation soon, so if you all decide to take the first commit only, then someone please just force-push to this branch and remove the 2nd commit.