diff options
| author | Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> | 2021-01-29 20:09:07 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org> | 2021-01-29 20:25:23 +0100 |
| commit | c7f4154c6a839d31abcbb74be4c9b2404ae3a2ec (patch) | |
| tree | 696e9f0405ec5be8897c12f6e3b1f2ef522630d6 /compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp | |
| parent | c4e33b51c1a2d5e599b949fa3006467b88df253a (diff) | |
| download | rust-c7f4154c6a839d31abcbb74be4c9b2404ae3a2ec.tar.gz rust-c7f4154c6a839d31abcbb74be4c9b2404ae3a2ec.zip | |
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.
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'compiler/rustc_llvm/llvm-wrapper/RustWrapper.cpp')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions
