Simplify the unwind crate#159010
Conversation
|
rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
|
@xobs would you be able to check if the second commit doesn't break Xous? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
cc @rust-lang/miri |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
At first blush, it doesn't compile: |
|
@rustbot author r=me on the general approach once we get xous working -- I'd expect you can check at least compilation locally with x.py check? You might need to skip bootstrap's sanity checks for a c toolchain. |
|
@bors r=Mark-Simulacrum |
|
Opened #159174 for the lint warnings. |
…ulacrum Simplify the unwind crate Use cfg_select! and unify type definitions.
…ulacrum Simplify the unwind crate Use cfg_select! and unify type definitions.
…uwer Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - #158732 (Apply MCP 1003 and move diagnostics.rs into its own module) - #159010 (Simplify the unwind crate) - #159131 (bootstrap: Allow path-based skipping of the coverage test suite) - #159134 (std: fix panic in Windows Stdin::read_vectored with pending surrogate) - #159178 (Print duration of BOLT instrumentation and optimization steps) - #159112 (Fix segfault in env access in statically linked FreeBSD binaries) - #159124 (compiletest: use VecDeque::pop_front_if)
|
💔 I suspect this PR failed tests as part of a rollup After fixing the problem, consider running a try job for the failed job before re-approving. Link to failure: #159187 (comment) |
|
This pull request was unapproved. This PR was contained in a rollup (#159187), which was unapproved. |
|
I've reverted the |
Use cfg_select! and unify type definitions.