Support [x; n] expressions in concat_bytes! #92066
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Contributes to rust-lang#87555.
rustbot
added
the
T-compiler
|
r? @nagisa (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
nagisa
reviewed
Dec 27, 2021
|
This seems reasonable to me. |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 9702348 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 28, 2021
Support [x; n] expressions in concat_bytes! Currently trying to use `concat_bytes!` with a repeating array value like `[42; 5]` results in an error: ``` error: expected a byte literal --> src/main.rs:3:27 | 3 | let x = concat_bytes!([3; 4]); | ^^^^^^ | = note: only byte literals (like `b"foo"`, `b's'`, and `[3, 4, 5]`) can be passed to `concat_bytes!()` ``` This makes it so repeating array syntax can be used the same way normal arrays can be. The RFC doesn't explicitly mention repeat expressions, but it seems reasonable to allow them as well, since normal arrays are allowed. It is possible to make the compiler get stuck compiling forever with `concat_bytes!([3; 999999999])`, but I don't think that's much of an issue since you can do that already with `const X: [u8; 999999999] = [3; 999999999];`. Contributes to rust-lang#87555.
dtolnay
added
T-libs-api
|
FYI @rust-lang/libs-api. ( |
|
⌛ Testing commit 9702348 with merge c983898ec8192d2621921099e1f0283925a892d1... |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
It looks like there was a spurious network error in CI: |
|
@bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
⌛ Testing commit 9702348 with merge 682dbb7278cbf1cf1f4b2ea2f2f9468ae84487d8... |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
lots of logs are missing :/ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
⌛ Testing commit 9702348 with merge 1d05c70e47d55341dc2bdd4cecf5de6c42d5ba55... |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (03360be): comparison url. Summary: This benchmark run did not return any relevant changes. If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Currently trying to use
concat_bytes!with a repeating array value like[42; 5]results in an error:This makes it so repeating array syntax can be used the same way normal arrays can be. The RFC doesn't explicitly mention repeat expressions, but it seems reasonable to allow them as well, since normal arrays are allowed.
It is possible to make the compiler get stuck compiling forever with
concat_bytes!([3; 999999999]), but I don't think that's much of an issue since you can do that already withconst X: [u8; 999999999] = [3; 999999999];.Contributes to #87555.