don't leak internal temporaries from dbg!#154994
Merged
Merged
Conversation
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Contributor
Author
dianne
added
the
beta-nominated
Member
|
We discussed this today in the libs meeting. We agree that reverting is the safer option for 1.95, given the late timing. However, this PR might also miss the 1.96 branch if it's not merged quickly, and then we probably will want a backport there. So, we're going to leave the nomination for now and see where things stand next week. |
Member
|
I've posted reverts in #154999 |
Member
|
@bors r+ It feels like we really want some kind of general test and/or language construct that makes this much less of a pain to write, though I guess probably most ecosystem macros wouldn't hit the same set of wide users needing the particular incantation to be 'perfect'. |
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 11, 2026
…uwer Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - #155057 (Update libc to v0.2.184) - #154967 (Test(lib/sync): Fix `test_rwlock_max_readers` for x86 Win7) - #154994 (don't leak internal temporaries from `dbg!`) - #155130 (Stabilize feature `isolate_most_least_significant_one`) - #154925 (Make Box/Rc/Arc::into_array allocator-aware (and add doctest)) - #155063 (`ty::Alias`: replace `def_id: did` with `def_id`)
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 12, 2026
…uwer Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - #155057 (Update libc to v0.2.184) - #154967 (Test(lib/sync): Fix `test_rwlock_max_readers` for x86 Win7) - #154994 (don't leak internal temporaries from `dbg!`) - #155130 (Stabilize feature `isolate_most_least_significant_one`) - #154925 (Make Box/Rc/Arc::into_array allocator-aware (and add doctest)) - #155063 (`ty::Alias`: replace `def_id: did` with `def_id`)
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 12, 2026
Rollup merge of #154994 - dianne:no-dbg-temp, r=Mark-Simulacrum don't leak internal temporaries from `dbg!` Fixes #154988 r? @Mark-Simulacrum as the reviewer of #154074
Contributor
|
Did this get merged in time for the 1.96.0 beta branch? (If not, we'll need to beta backport.) Edit: It did not. So, a beta backport to 1.96.0 is needed. |
Amanieu
added
the
beta-accepted
Merged
cuviper
removed
the
beta-nominated
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2026
Revert tearing changes to `dbg!` Since the primary change to `dbg!` in #149869, we've been chasing a few regressions: * #153850, fixed by #154074 * #154988, fixed by #154994 * #155902, proposed fix in #155915 We already reverted this once, on beta only to prevent these regressions from shipping in 1.95. In that most recent PR, we decided that it would be better to revert `dbg!` to its original state everywhere (`main` and 1.96-`beta`), and then we can consider it from scratch later. So here I've reverted the change and its fixes, but kept the regression tests, including the pending one. cc @joboet @dianne @rust-lang/libs @rustbot label beta-nominated
cuviper
added a commit
to cuviper/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2026
These are all tests from trying to fix the tear-free `dbg!`: * rust-lang#154074 * rust-lang#154994 * rust-lang#155915 These should also work as we revert to the old `dbg!`, so we should keep the tests to make sure they don't regress again. Co-authored-by: dianne <diannes.gm@gmail.com> (cherry picked from commit 6f35b83)
pull Bot
pushed a commit
to xtqqczze/rust-lang-miri
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2026
Revert tearing changes to `dbg!` Since the primary change to `dbg!` in rust-lang/rust#149869, we've been chasing a few regressions: * rust-lang/rust#153850, fixed by rust-lang/rust#154074 * rust-lang/rust#154988, fixed by rust-lang/rust#154994 * rust-lang/rust#155902, proposed fix in rust-lang/rust#155915 We already reverted this once, on beta only to prevent these regressions from shipping in 1.95. In that most recent PR, we decided that it would be better to revert `dbg!` to its original state everywhere (`main` and 1.96-`beta`), and then we can consider it from scratch later. So here I've reverted the change and its fixes, but kept the regression tests, including the pending one. cc @joboet @dianne @rust-lang/libs @rustbot label beta-nominated
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
6 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.
Fixes #154988
r? @Mark-Simulacrum as the reviewer of #154074