| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
add codegen test for variadics
This is a part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144066 that can land without FCP.
|
|
Let `codegen_transmute_operand` just handle everything
When combined with rust-lang/rust#143720, this means `rvalue_creates_operand` can just return `true` for *every* `Rvalue`. (A future PR could consider removing it, though just letting it optimize out is fine for now.)
It's nicer anyway, IMHO, because it avoids needing the layout checks to be consistent in the two places, and thus is an overall reduction in code. Plus it's a more helpful building block when used in other places this way.
(TBH, it probably would have been better to have it this way the whole time, but I clearly didn't understand `rvalue_creates_operand` when I originally wrote rust-lang/rust#109843.)
|
|
Enable const-vector.rs test on RISC-V (riscv64)
This PR replaces [#144283](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144283) to resolve merge conflicts.
This PR adds support for running the `tests/codegen/const-vector.rs` test on the RISC-V (riscv64) architecture.
Previously, this test would fail on RISC-V targets due to architecture-specific code generation issues. This patch modifies the test to ensure compatibility while preserving its intent.
The change has been tested locally using `./x test` on a riscv64 target, and the test now passes as expected.
### Notes:
- This change is scoped specifically to improve RISC-V compatibility.
- It does not affect behavior or test results on other architectures.
|
|
For example, transmuting between `bool` and `Ordering` doesn't need two `assume`s because one range is a superset of the other.
Multiple are still used for things like `char` <-> `NonZero<u32>`, which overlap but where neither fully contains the other.
|
|
involving pointers)
|
|
When combined with 143720, this means `rvalue_creates_operand` can just return `true` for *every* `Rvalue`. (A future PR could consider removing it, though just letting it optimize out is fine for now.)
It's nicer anyway, IMHO, because it avoids needing the layout checks to be consistent in the two places, and thus is an overall reduction in code. Plus it's a more helpful building block when used in other places this way.
|
|
tests)
|
|
|
|
|
