Improve miri_print_borrow_stacks #2614
Merged
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
No, pointers with |
RalfJung
reviewed
Oct 24, 2022
RalfJung
reviewed
Oct 24, 2022
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #2618) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
saethlin
force-pushed
the
stack-inspection-tools
branch
from
b01182a to
ef5515c
Compare
RalfJung
reviewed
Oct 26, 2022
RalfJung
reviewed
Oct 26, 2022
|
@bors r+ |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Thanks for improving the docs :) |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Per post-merge review on #2322
miri_print_stacksrenamed tomiri_print_borrow_stacksunknown_bottomif one existsOpen question: Currently
miri_get_alloc_idgets the expectedAllocIdforWildcardpointers, but for pointers with no provenance, the function reports UB and halts the interpreter. That's definitely wrong. But what should we do? Is it reasonable to check if the pointer hasNoneprovenance and try to get anAllocIdfor its address? That still leaves us with a failure path, which in this case might be best-handled as an ICE? I'm just not sure that changing the return type ofmiri_get_alloc_idtoOptionis a win because it complicates all normal uses of this.