)]}'
{
  "commit": "574e5897d7c6ff8a0294c23117f707a67e3386a6",
  "tree": "a290c5e38073a4070aa7a78fed195ccb09c2cbaa",
  "parents": [
    "812c630e867f4161e7e26a52859cca3f1934e60c",
    "c72a794526efd186066c6bf166ba3c6b5af6a9bf"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Jacob Pratt",
    "email": "jacob@jhpratt.dev",
    "time": "Tue Jul 14 23:23:12 2026 -0400"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "GitHub",
    "email": "noreply@github.com",
    "time": "Tue Jul 14 23:23:12 2026 -0400"
  },
  "message": "Rollup merge of #159181 - quiode:mem--forget-implicit-writes, r\u003dRalfJung\n\nadd rustc_no_writable to mem::forget and structs it uses\n\nThis builds upon https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/155207 and is similar to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/157202. It adds the `#[rustc_no_writable]` attribute to `mem::forget` and the `MaybeDangling` and `ManuallyDrop`. This makes Miri with Tree Borrows and implicit writes no longer report UB for a test in `derive_more`.\nAs the pattern itself is quite unclean, and I have not seen `mem::forget` to cause trouble before with implicit writes, I\u0027m not sure how much sense it makes to add it to `mem::forget`. The test works unter Tree Borrows, but fails already for Stacked Borrows. Thus I would be happy for some guidance if the attribute makes sense here @RalfJung  @JoJoDeveloping.\n",
  "tree_diff": []
}