Remove `constness` from `ParamEnv`

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/const_eval/eval_queries.rs b/compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/const_eval/eval_queries.rs
index c8e8a371105..4c7e9194401 100644
--- a/compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/const_eval/eval_queries.rs
+++ b/compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/const_eval/eval_queries.rs
@@ -228,7 +228,6 @@ pub fn eval_to_const_value_raw_provider<'tcx>(
     tcx: TyCtxt<'tcx>,
     key: ty::ParamEnvAnd<'tcx, GlobalId<'tcx>>,
 ) -> ::rustc_middle::mir::interpret::EvalToConstValueResult<'tcx> {
-    assert!(key.param_env.is_const());
     // see comment in eval_to_allocation_raw_provider for what we're doing here
     if key.param_env.reveal() == Reveal::All {
         let mut key = key;
@@ -269,7 +268,6 @@ pub fn eval_to_allocation_raw_provider<'tcx>(
     tcx: TyCtxt<'tcx>,
     key: ty::ParamEnvAnd<'tcx, GlobalId<'tcx>>,
 ) -> ::rustc_middle::mir::interpret::EvalToAllocationRawResult<'tcx> {
-    assert!(key.param_env.is_const());
     // Because the constant is computed twice (once per value of `Reveal`), we are at risk of
     // reporting the same error twice here. To resolve this, we check whether we can evaluate the
     // constant in the more restrictive `Reveal::UserFacing`, which most likely already was