1
Fork 0

drive-by: use is_const and is_const_if_const

This commit is contained in:
Michael Goulet 2022-01-26 19:24:01 -08:00
parent 1ab97dbc52
commit c6de4d55aa
7 changed files with 16 additions and 15 deletions

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