@WG-prioritization/alerts issue #67375 has been requested for prioritization.
I-nominated?(this was marked as p-high before this wg was created, so re-prioritising to check if maybe need to reconsider the priority)
An illegal instruction sounds pretty high on the list for me, especially on stable. Why not critical?
for especially the newcomers: this was marked as p-high before this group existed, and back then p-high was the highest priority you could give. IIRC we did migrate some of the those accordingly, but either way p-high back then could equate to "modern day" :stuck_out_tongue: p-critical
It looks like it doesn't emit "SIG_ILL" anymore
the rest of this issue is the "classic const generics bug", where we get an ICE when referring to generic parameters inside of anonymous constants
for those interested, the ICE happens because we do not supply the parent generics to anonymous constants, as doing so without feature(lazy_normalization_consts) causes cycle errors (we would have to compute a query to get the result of the exact same query)
This then means that when looking at the generic parameter T inside of inner the compiler gets confused as it did not expect any parameters here.
Without the illegal instruction, this seems P-medium to me, as it is the exact same bug as #67945
(also see #43408 for more discussion about this issue)
Should it be closed as a duplicate then?
yeah, tbh I don't see the point of keeping this open, it might be better to instead change this to E-needs-test with min_const_generics to see that we correctly handle it there
as closures are fairly untested there iirc
Issue #67375's prioritization request has been removed.