Check for intrinsics before coercing to a function pointer #84404
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Return an error if coercing function items / non-capturing closures to a common function pointer type would require reifying an intrinsic.
|
r? @estebank (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
tmiasko
force-pushed
the
intrinsics-in-coercion-lub
branch
from
27637c0
to
75732dd
Compare
|
@bors r Seems OK; we may eventually want to support this with a shim generated in-place, but doesn't seem worth the hassle right now and should be a good change otherwise. |
|
📌 Commit 75732dd has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2021
Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#84343 (Remove `ScopeTree::closure_tree`) - rust-lang#84376 (Uses flex to fix formatting of h1 at any width) - rust-lang#84377 (Followup to rust-lang#83944) - rust-lang#84396 (Update LLVM submodule) - rust-lang#84402 (Move `sys_common::rwlock::StaticRWLock` etc. to `sys::unix::rwlock`) - rust-lang#84404 (Check for intrinsics before coercing to a function pointer) - rust-lang#84413 (Remove `sys::args::Args::inner_debug` and use `Debug` instead) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
pietroalbini
added
beta-nominated
|
@rust-lang/compiler this PR fixes a beta regression, #84297. Sorry for the late ping, could the backport be approved before next week? |
|
Hm, this is actually not the right fix, upon further examination; or needs additional work. https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=01fb7cb94c3eda2cfffca68b09b6a709 compiles on stable, and this PR introduces an error rather than ICE, but we need to accept this code... |
|
I don't think this should be backported, I wrote more in #84297 (comment). |
|
I replied in #84297. |
Mark-Simulacrum
removed
the
beta-nominated
|
Dropping beta-nom here as we're going to end up reverting a different PR instead |
pnkfelix
added a commit
to pnkfelix/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 4, 2021
…pping`. Test was added in PR rust-lang#84404. The intent here is: The `copy`/`copy_overlapping` intrinsics are going through some flip-flopping now of "are they intrinsics or not". We can achieve the same effect that the test intended by using `likely`/`unlikely`.
pnkfelix
added a commit
to pnkfelix/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 10, 2021
…pping`. Test was added in PR rust-lang#84404. The intent here is: The `copy`/`copy_overlapping` intrinsics are going through some flip-flopping now of "are they intrinsics or not". We can achieve the same effect that the test intended by using `likely`/`unlikely`.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Return an error if coercing function items / non-capturing closures
to a common function pointer type would require reifying an intrinsic.
Turns ICE reported in #84297 into a proper error.