-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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.
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
Don't leak the compiler's internal representation of scopes in error messages. #38552
Conversation
r? @pnkfelix (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 25b1d2c has been approved by |
Marked as beta-accepted: regr in diagnostics, low risk change. |
@bors: p=1 (beta nominated) |
⌛ Testing commit 25b1d2c with merge a1708c2... |
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
@bors: retry
* network failure
…On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 11:50 PM, bors ***@***.***> wrote:
💔 Test failed - status-travis
<https://travis-ci.org/rust-lang/rust/builds/186914248>
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#38552 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD95NwjMHdvzY_Y-crCeMoQ08eIdYXGks5rMMNTgaJpZM4LUN6w>
.
|
⌛ Testing commit 25b1d2c with merge 9fc4005... |
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
How can that even happen? It almost sounds like one line was replaced with the previous line, musl bug? |
@bors retry |
⌛ Testing commit 25b1d2c with merge abd4aa7... |
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
looks legitimate
|
I think I'll keep changes that are needed solely to make the original patch on master, separate. |
@bors r=arielb1 |
📌 Commit 987f52f has been approved by |
Don't leak the compiler's internal representation of scopes in error messages. Fixes #37884 (actually fixes #27942, which was made worse by #37412) by handling more node types. Ideally we'd turn the unknown node type situations into ICEs and fix them as they show up in errors. But we might want to backport this patch so I was less aggressive.
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
@eddyb this PR backports cleanly to beta but then results in a build failure. Can you investigate backporting to beta? |
@alexcrichton Do you have the build failure? |
@eddyb unfortunately no |
Fixes #37884 (actually fixes #27942, which was made worse by #37412) by handling more node types.
Ideally we'd turn the unknown node type situations into ICEs and fix them as they show up in errors.
But we might want to backport this patch so I was less aggressive.