r? @scottmcm

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

Hi lang! Nominating to see whether we have any concerns about what it means to give access to this kind of stuff in const -- it feels like it could mean functions that give monomorphization-time errors if called from functions in the wrong file, since they could assert! the .file() or something.

ping @rust-lang/wg-const-eval, any potential issue with constifying this?

Seems fine to me, but the PR should add some tests.

Hey! It looks like you've submitted a new PR for the library teams!

If this PR contains changes to any rust-lang/rust public library APIs then please comment with @rustbot label +T-libs-api -T-libs to tag it appropriately. If this PR contains changes to any unstable APIs please edit the PR description to add a link to the relevant API Change Proposal or create one if you haven't already. If you're unsure where your change falls no worries, just leave it as is and the reviewer will take a look and make a decision to forward on if necessary.

Examples of T-libs-api changes:

• Stabilizing library features
• Introducing insta-stable changes such as new implementations of existing stable traits on existing stable types
• Introducing new or changing existing unstable library APIs (excluding permanently unstable features / features without a tracking issue)
• Changing public documentation in ways that create new stability guarantees
• Changing observable runtime behavior of library APIs

Added.

We discussed this in the lang meeting last week. The core conclusion we ended up at is that the horrible things you could potentially do at compile-time with this aren't any that much worse than the horrible things you can do with this at runtime today (like aborting if called from line 666). So there's no need to block this from nightly.

@bors r+

📌 Commit 7b99388 has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

⌛ Testing commit 7b99388 with merge 601b5281fdcbad5156eec5a8410a7c2fb9a1fada...

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors r-

Looks like the tests need to be fixed for windows:

 ---- panic::location::location_const_file stdout ----
thread 'panic::location::location_const_file' panicked at 'assertion failed: `(left == right)`
  left: `"library\\core\\tests\\panic\\location.rs"`,
 right: `"library/core/tests/panic/location.rs"`', library\core\tests\panic\location.rs:16:5

Fixed.

@bors r=scottmcm

📌 Commit a53e3ac has been approved by scottmcm

It is now in the queue for this repository.

⌛ Testing commit a53e3ac with merge bf15a9e...

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: scottmcm
Pushing bf15a9e to master...

Finished benchmarking commit (bf15a9e): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Cycles