consistently use "next solver" instead of "new solver"

This commit is contained in:
lcnr
2023-12-14 14:47:41 +01:00
parent 11d16c4082
commit 0947070871
168 changed files with 16 additions and 16 deletions

View File

@@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> EvalCtxt<'a, 'tcx> {
//
// This assert was removed as it did not hold for goals constraining
// an inference variable to a recursive alias, e.g. in
// tests/ui/traits/new-solver/overflow/recursive-self-normalization.rs.
// tests/ui/traits/next-solver/overflow/recursive-self-normalization.rs.
//
// Once we have decided on how to handle trait-system-refactor-initiative#75,
// we should re-add an assert here.

View File

@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ struct StackEntry<'tcx> {
/// If we were to use that result when later trying to prove another cycle
/// participant, we can end up with unstable query results.
///
/// See tests/ui/new-solver/coinduction/incompleteness-unstable-result.rs for
/// See tests/ui/next-solver/coinduction/incompleteness-unstable-result.rs for
/// an example of where this is needed.
cycle_participants: FxHashSet<CanonicalInput<'tcx>>,
}
@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ impl<'tcx> SearchGraph<'tcx> {
// in unstable results due to incompleteness.
//
// However, a test for this would be an even more complex version of
// tests/ui/traits/new-solver/coinduction/incompleteness-unstable-result.rs.
// tests/ui/traits/next-solver/coinduction/incompleteness-unstable-result.rs.
// I did not bother to write such a test and we have no regression test
// for this. It would be good to have such a test :)
#[allow(rustc::potential_query_instability)]
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ impl<'tcx> SearchGraph<'tcx> {
// until we reach a fixpoint. It is not enough to simply retry the
// `root` goal of this cycle.
//
// See tests/ui/traits/new-solver/cycles/fixpoint-rerun-all-cycle-heads.rs
// See tests/ui/traits/next-solver/cycles/fixpoint-rerun-all-cycle-heads.rs
// for an example.
self.stack[stack_depth].has_been_used = true;
return if let Some(result) = self.stack[stack_depth].provisional_result {