bjoernager/rust
bjoernager/rust
1
Fork 0
Code Activity

Rollup merge of #93358 - compiler-errors:is-not-const, r=fee1-dead

Browse source 
Add note suggesting that predicate may be satisfied, but is not `const`

Not sure if we should be printing this in addition to, or perhaps _instead_ of the help message:
```
help: the trait `~const Add` is not implemented for `NonConstAdd`
```

Also added `ParamEnv::is_const` and `PolyTraitPredicate::is_const_if_const` and, in a separate commit, used those in other places instead of `== hir::Constness::Const`, etc.

r? ````@fee1-dead````
This commit is contained in:
Matthias Krüger 2022-01-30 00:04:11 +01:00 • committed by GitHub
commit 103c3a38a6
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
14 changed files with 84 additions and 12 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

5
compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/const_eval/eval_queries.rs
View file

@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ use crate::interpret::{
};
use rustc_errors::ErrorReported;
use rustc_hir as hir;
use rustc_hir::def::DefKind;
use rustc_middle::mir;
use rustc_middle::mir::interpret::ErrorHandled;
@ -216,7 +215,7 @@ pub fn eval_to_const_value_raw_provider<'tcx>(
tcx: TyCtxt<'tcx>,
key: ty::ParamEnvAnd<'tcx, GlobalId<'tcx>>,
) -> ::rustc_middle::mir::interpret::EvalToConstValueResult<'tcx> {
assert!(key.param_env.constness() == hir::Constness::Const);
assert!(key.param_env.is_const());
// see comment in eval_to_allocation_raw_provider for what we're doing here
if key.param_env.reveal() == Reveal::All {
let mut key = key;
@ -251,7 +250,7 @@ pub fn eval_to_allocation_raw_provider<'tcx>(
tcx: TyCtxt<'tcx>,
key: ty::ParamEnvAnd<'tcx, GlobalId<'tcx>>,
) -> ::rustc_middle::mir::interpret::EvalToAllocationRawResult<'tcx> {
assert!(key.param_env.constness() == hir::Constness::Const);
assert!(key.param_env.is_const());
// Because the constant is computed twice (once per value of `Reveal`), we are at risk of
// reporting the same error twice here. To resolve this, we check whether we can evaluate the
// constant in the more restrictive `Reveal::UserFacing`, which most likely already was