Skip to content

Remove rusti reference from pp.mk - #9992

Merged
bors merged 1 commit into
rust-lang:masterfrom
astrieanna:rm_rusti
Oct 22, 2013
Merged

bors merged 1 commit into
rust-lang:masterfrom
astrieanna:rm_rusti

Conversation

@astrieanna

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

It seems like rusti has been removed, except for one reference in one Makefile. This reference breaks building rust on my computer because the "all-target" rule has rusti as a target.

make: *** No rule to make target `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/bin/rusti', needed by `all-target-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-host-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu'.  Stop.

Removing this line fixes things for me.

@thestinger

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Can you squash these commits into one?

@brson

brson commented Oct 21, 2013

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Thanks! 🌟

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2013
It seems like rusti has been removed, except for one reference in one Makefile. This reference breaks building rust on my computer because the "all-target" rule has rusti as a target.

~~~~
make: *** No rule to make target `x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/stage2/bin/rusti', needed by `all-target-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-host-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu'.  Stop.
~~~~

Removing this line fixes things for me.
@bors bors closed this Oct 22, 2013
@bors
bors merged commit 9ced953 into rust-lang:master Oct 22, 2013
U007D pushed a commit to U007D/rust-mos that referenced this pull request Aug 21, 2026
10180: Fix resolution for inherent array methods r=flodiebold a=yotamofek

My second attempt at fixing rust-lang#9992 , previous attempt was here: rust-lang#10017 , but the logic was broken.

I know that this is not an ideal solution.... that would require, IIUC, a pretty big overhaul of the const generics handling in `rust-analyzer`. But, given that some of the array methods were/are being stabilized (e.g. rust-lang#87174 ), I think it'll be very beneficial to `rust-analyzer` users to have some preliminary support for them. (I know it's something I've been running into quite a lot lately :) )

As far as my limited understanding of this project's architecture goes, I think this isn't the worst hack in the world, and shouldn't be too much of a hassle to undo if/when const generics become better supported. If the maintainers deem this approach viable, I'll want to add some comments, emphasizing the purpose of this code, and that it should be removed at some point in the future.

Co-authored-by: Yotam Ofek <yotam.ofek@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants