Conversation
|
Seems plausible, but please add a short description that explains the current situation and how/why this PR improves things. Currently the only descriptive word is "cleanup" which tells the reader very little. cc @Zoxc |
Updated the top comment. Is it good? |
|
It's an improvement, but it still doesn't explain what was going wrong in #127971 and how that has been fixed. The new |
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
This PR basically eliminates panic that have caused #127971 and avoids
Previously there was: tcx.dcx().abort_if_errors();
unreachable!()Now compare it to let Some(guar) = tcx.sess.dcx().has_errors() else {
bug!(
"`from_cycle_error_default` on query `{query_name}` called without errors: {:#?}",
cycle_error.cycle,
);
};
guar.raise_fatal()These are essentially the same. I've only changed |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #153741) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
A better PR title would be something like "Fix ICE in A better commit message would be something like this:
This explains the current situation and the change in a way that is meaningful to a reader who isn't already familiar with #127971. |
|
Needs rebasing over #153694, and the title/description/commit messages updated as described above. |
A cleanup based and blocked on #153694.
This PR changes panic messages in
fn_sig'svalue_from_cycle_errorto more fitting ones. Also this PR makesvariances_of'svalue_from_cycle_errorto utilize new query key argument instead of extracting it fromCycleError.Closes #127971
r? @nnethercote