| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
The implementation of the linkage attribute inside extern blocks defines
symbols starting with _rust_extern_with_linkage_. If someone tries to
also define this symbol you will get a symbol conflict or even an ICE.
By adding an unpredictable component to the symbol name, this becomes
less of an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
default data address space
|
|
|
|
sync_cg_clif-2025-06-24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
take 2
open up coroutines
tweak the wordings
the lint works up until 2021
We were missing one case, for ADTs, which was
causing `Result` to yield incorrect results.
only include field spans with significant types
deduplicate and eliminate field spans
switch to emit spans to impl Drops
Co-authored-by: Niko Matsakis <nikomat@amazon.com>
collect drops instead of taking liveness diff
apply some suggestions and add explantory notes
small fix on the cache
let the query recurse through coroutine
new suggestion format with extracted variable name
fine-tune the drop span and messages
bugfix on runtime borrows
tweak message wording
filter out ecosystem types earlier
apply suggestions
clippy
check lint level at session level
further restrict applicability of the lint
translate bid into nop for stable mir
detect cycle in type structure
|
|
the behavior of the type system not only depends on the current
assumptions, but also the currentnphase of the compiler. This is
mostly necessary as we need to decide whether and how to reveal
opaque types. We track this via the `TypingMode`.
|
|
|
|
sync_cg_clif-2024-09-22
|
|
|
|
sync_cg_clif-2024-07-13
|
|
Support tail calls in mir via `TerminatorKind::TailCall`
This is one of the interesting bits in tail call implementation — MIR support.
This adds a new `TerminatorKind` which represents a tail call:
```rust
TailCall {
func: Operand<'tcx>,
args: Vec<Operand<'tcx>>,
fn_span: Span,
},
```
*Structurally* this is very similar to a normal `Call` but is missing a few fields:
- `destination` — tail calls don't write to destination, instead they pass caller's destination to the callee (such that eventual `return` will write to the caller of the function that used tail call)
- `target` — similarly to `destination` tail calls pass the caller's return address to the callee, so there is nothing to do
- `unwind` — I _think_ this is applicable too, although it's a bit confusing
- `call_source` — `become` forbids operators and is not created as a lowering of something else; tail calls always come from HIR (at least for now)
It might be helpful to read the interpreter implementation to understand what `TailCall` means exactly, although I've tried documenting it too.
-----
There are a few `FIXME`-questions still left, ideally we'd be able to answer them during review ':)
-----
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@scottmcm` `@DrMeepster` `@JakobDegen`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sync_cg_clif-2024-05-13
|
|
sync_cg_clif-2024-04-23
|
|
|
|
sync_cg_clif-2024-03-28
|
|
cases that used `None`
|
|
sync_cg_clif-2024-03-16
|
|
|
|
sync_cg_clif-2024-03-08
|
|
Also add some `dcx` methods to types that wrap `TyCtxt`, for easier
access.
|
|
detects redundant imports that can be eliminated.
for #117772 :
In order to facilitate review and modification, split the checking code and
removing redundant imports code into two PR.
|
|
is immutable
|
|
sync_cg_clif-2023-11-16
|
|
|
|
sync_cg_clif-2023-10-09
|
|
rename mir::Constant -> mir::ConstOperand, mir::ConstKind -> mir::Const
Also, be more consistent with the `to/eval_bits` methods... we had some that take a type and some that take a size, and then sometimes the one that takes a type is called `bits_for_ty`.
Turns out that `ty::Const`/`mir::ConstKind` carry their type with them, so we don't need to even pass the type to those `eval_bits` functions at all.
However this is not properly consistent yet: in `ty` we have most of the methods on `ty::Const`, but in `mir` we have them on `mir::ConstKind`. And indeed those two types are the ones that correspond to each other. So `mir::ConstantKind` should actually be renamed to `mir::Const`. But what to do with `mir::Constant`? It carries around a span, that's really more like a constant operand that appears as a MIR operand... it's more suited for `syntax.rs` than `consts.rs`, but the bigger question is, which name should it get if we want to align the `mir` and `ty` types? `ConstOperand`? `ConstOp`? `Literal`? It's not a literal but it has a field called `literal` so it would at least be consistently wrong-ish...
``@oli-obk`` any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
this way we have mir::ConstValue and ty::ValTree as reasonably parallel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
