Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

remove FIXME, improve documentation #102416

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 29, 2022
Merged

remove FIXME, improve documentation #102416

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 5 additions & 5 deletions compiler/rustc_trait_selection/src/traits/select/mod.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1737,12 +1737,12 @@ impl<'cx, 'tcx> SelectionContext<'cx, 'tcx> {

(&ImplCandidate(other_def), &ImplCandidate(victim_def)) => {
// See if we can toss out `victim` based on specialization.
// This requires us to know *for sure* that the `other` impl applies
// i.e., `EvaluatedToOk`.
// While this requires us to know *for sure* that the `other` impl applies
// we still use modulo regions here.
//
// FIXME(@lcnr): Using `modulo_regions` here seems kind of scary
// to me but is required for `std` to compile, so I didn't change it
// for now.
// This is fine as specialization currently assumes that specializing
// impls have to be always applicable, meaning that the only allowed
// region constraints may be constraints also present on the default impl.
let tcx = self.tcx();
if other.evaluation.must_apply_modulo_regions() {
if tcx.specializes((other_def, victim_def)) {
Expand Down