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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you have any reason why this line is different from one in provided code in the issue? #149035 (comment)
Ideally, we need to verify with that test that the ICE occurs without the fix in #152129.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The original const L doesn't compile on current main, as #152129 both fixed the ICE and introduced type const syntax for free consts, so I had to adapt the reproducer.
I verified with rustup:
So there's no nightly where type const exists and the ICE is still present, as the syntax was introduced by the same PR that fixed the bug. That means this test can't directly catch a revert of #152129 (the syntax would vanish too). It's more of a smoke test for the const-in-generic-arg + -Clink-dead-code=true path in mono item collection.
Happy to drop it if you don't think that's useful enough, or adjust the approach if you have something else in mind.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we need to test with
type constSo I think it would have been more appropriate to close the issue with obsolete instead of adding E-needs-test labels.
I'll close the issue and PR, thanks for your contribution :)