Remove #[rustc_reservation_impl] - #160871
Draft
WaffleLapkin wants to merge 7 commits into
Draft
Conversation
rustbot
added
A-attributes
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
WaffleLapkin
force-pushed
the
remove_rustc_reservation_impl
branch
from
August 10, 2026 18:59
dc47214 to
5bb1e02
Compare
Contributor
|
The use case I described for I think it's fine to remove this specific hack and later replace it with something else if it happens to use the same name. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
WaffleLapkin
force-pushed
the
remove_rustc_reservation_impl
branch
from
August 17, 2026 10:37
5bb1e02 to
15f38ce
Compare
2 tasks
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Based on #160705.
There was only ever one reservation impl and it got (/is being) removed in #160705. I don't think there is a reason to keep the machinery, given how specific and tricky the semantics of it are (see #64631).
Closes #64631.
cc @clarfonthey since you seem to have found another use for the attribute (#64631 (comment)) (I haven't looked into it, so not sure if it might be worth keeping the attribute for that use case).
r? types