treat inductive cycles as ambig - #163159
Merged
Merged
Conversation
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
oli-obk
approved these changes
Sep 22, 2026
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunate that the tests didn't have revisions before (for a sec I confused myself and wondered why the old solver diagnostics also changed)
@bors r+ rollup
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
JonathanBrouwer
added a commit
to JonathanBrouwer/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 22, 2026
…-obk treat inductive cycles as ambig We needed inductive cycles to be `NoSolution` for proper `ParamEnv` normalization. With rust-lang#158643 this is no longer necessary, so lets make the stabilization of the new solver as small as possible. r? types
This was referenced Sep 22, 2026
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 22, 2026
…uwer Rollup of 13 pull requests Successful merges: - #156949 (Detect missing else in let statement) - #160436 (stabilize `Box::take`) - #160570 (macro_metavar_expr_concat: support concatenating into string literals) - #162837 (Dedicated Display type for CStr::display) - #163099 (Use wrapping arithmetic in `from_str_radix`) - #163166 (Tiny cleanups to deferred liveness) - #161667 (Add `f16` inline ASM support for `nvptx64-nvidia-cuda`) - #163063 (Restore `Send` and `Sync` for `BorrowedCursor`) - #163097 (OpenBSD/sparc64 has switched from GCC to Clang) - #163126 (Skip redundant storage-conflict updates during coroutine layout) - #163135 (librustdoc: remove stale dep on base64) - #163146 (tests: Update `f16b` codegen test for LoongArch and RISC-V) - #163159 (treat inductive cycles as ambig)
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 23, 2026
Rollup merge of #163159 - lcnr:inductive-cycles-ambig, r=oli-obk treat inductive cycles as ambig We needed inductive cycles to be `NoSolution` for proper `ParamEnv` normalization. With #158643 this is no longer necessary, so lets make the stabilization of the new solver as small as possible. r? types
Contributor
|
Does this affect coherence-checking or impossible bounds (i.e., stable rust) in any way? |
Contributor
Author
|
impossible predicates in theory, but having more ambiguity here shouldn't cause issues. coherence checking is not affected, see the change to |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We needed inductive cycles to be
NoSolutionfor properParamEnvnormalization. With #158643 this is no longer necessary, so lets make the stabilization of the new solver as small as possible.r? types