From d284c8a2d7a2de918a966bee9c9069d7b5bf06bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicholas Nethercote Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 19:43:35 +1100 Subject: Rename `ACTIVE_FEATURES` as `UNSTABLE_FEATURES`. It's a better name, and lets "active features" refer to the features that are active in a particular program, due to being declared or enabled by the edition. The commit also renames `Features::enabled` as `Features::active` to match this; I changed my mind and have decided that "active" is a little better thatn "enabled" for this, particularly because a number of pre-existing comments use "active" in this way. Finally, the commit renames `Status::Stable` as `Status::Accepted`, to match `ACCEPTED_FEATURES`. --- compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/transform/check_consts/check.rs | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'compiler/rustc_const_eval/src') diff --git a/compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/transform/check_consts/check.rs b/compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/transform/check_consts/check.rs index d476805c0b2..92e7922ad3b 100644 --- a/compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/transform/check_consts/check.rs +++ b/compiler/rustc_const_eval/src/transform/check_consts/check.rs @@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ impl<'mir, 'tcx> Checker<'mir, 'tcx> { let gate = match op.status_in_item(self.ccx) { Status::Allowed => return, - Status::Unstable(gate) if self.tcx.features().enabled(gate) => { + Status::Unstable(gate) if self.tcx.features().active(gate) => { let unstable_in_stable = self.ccx.is_const_stable_const_fn() && !super::rustc_allow_const_fn_unstable(self.tcx, self.def_id(), gate); if unstable_in_stable { -- cgit 1.4.1-3-g733a5