Skip to content

Conversation

scottmcm
Copy link
Member

I just added this as part of #45595, but I'm now afraid there's a specialization issue with it, since I tried to add another similar specialization, and ended up getting really disturbing test failures like

thread 'iter::test_by_ref_folds' panicked at 'assertion failed: `(left == right)`
  left: `15`, 
 right: `15`', src\libcore\../libcore/tests\iter.rs:1720:4

So since this wasn't the most critical part of the change and a new beta is branching within a week, I think putting this part back to what it was before is the best option.

@kennytm kennytm added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Nov 18, 2017
@bluss
Copy link
Contributor

bluss commented Nov 18, 2017

@bors r+

I'm fine with being suspicious of Sized vs ?Sized specialization — not so long ago it was always an ICE.

Please report a bug for the problems you found.

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 18, 2017

📌 Commit cef45b3 has been approved by bluss

@kennytm kennytm added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Nov 18, 2017
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 19, 2017

⌛ Testing commit cef45b3 with merge d8d5b61...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 19, 2017
Undo the Sized specialization from Iterator::nth

I just added this as part of #45595, but I'm now afraid there's a specialization issue with it, since I tried to add [another similar specialization](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/compare/master...scottmcm:faster-iter-by-ref?expand=1#diff-1398f322bc563592215b583e9b0ba936R2390), and ended up getting really disturbing test failures like
```
thread 'iter::test_by_ref_folds' panicked at 'assertion failed: `(left == right)`
  left: `15`,
 right: `15`', src\libcore\../libcore/tests\iter.rs:1720:4
```

So since this wasn't the most critical part of the change and a new beta is branching within a week, I think putting this part back to what it was before is the best option.
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 19, 2017

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: bluss
Pushing d8d5b61 to master...

@bors bors merged commit cef45b3 into rust-lang:master Nov 19, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants