diff options
| author | Jack Huey <31162821+jackh726@users.noreply.github.com> | 2021-02-02 16:01:38 -0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | GitHub <noreply@github.com> | 2021-02-02 16:01:38 -0500 |
| commit | 76be6bb4de596ad24c62dd52baeb0cb56c8937ae (patch) | |
| tree | bee4e8d6d81ac203d243a9a49276d3de41cedbfc /compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp | |
| parent | 71792d822c713b66616b2b5dde1fa9cffe3ab21d (diff) | |
| parent | c7f4154c6a839d31abcbb74be4c9b2404ae3a2ec (diff) | |
| download | rust-76be6bb4de596ad24c62dd52baeb0cb56c8937ae.tar.gz rust-76be6bb4de596ad24c62dd52baeb0cb56c8937ae.zip | |
Rollup merge of #81530 - ojeda:sys-use-abort-instead-of-wasm32-unreachable, r=Mark-Simulacrum
sys: use `process::abort()` instead of `arch::wasm32::unreachable()` Rationale: - `abort()` lowers to `wasm32::unreachable()` anyway. - `abort()` isn't `unsafe`. - `abort()` matches the comment better. - `abort()` avoids confusion by future readers (e.g. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81527): the naming of wasm's `unreachable` instruction is a bit unfortunate because it is not related to the `unreachable()` intrinsic (intended to trigger UB). Codegen is likely to be different since `unreachable()` is `inline` while `abort()` is `cold`. Since it doesn't look like we are expecting here to trigger this case, the latter seems better anyway.
Diffstat (limited to 'compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions