Rollup of 5 pull requests #121914
Merged
Rollup of 5 pull requests #121914
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
Currently fails:
---- task::test_waker_will_wake_clone stdout ----
thread 'task::test_waker_will_wake_clone' panicked at library/alloc/tests/task.rs:17:5:
assertion failed: waker.will_wake(&clone)
For some reason it doesn't figure out the slice coercion.
…we won't be constraining hidden types here anymore
Adds initial support for DataFlowSanitizer to the Rust compiler. It currently supports `-Zsanitizer-dataflow-abilist`. Additional options for it can be passed to LLVM command line argument processor via LLVM arguments using `llvm-args` codegen option (e.g., `-Cllvm-args=-dfsan-combine-pointer-labels-on-load=false`).
Add initial support for DataFlowSanitizer Adds initial support for DataFlowSanitizer to the Rust compiler. It currently supports `-Zsanitizer-dataflow-abilist`. Additional options for it can be passed to LLVM command line argument processor via LLVM arguments using `llvm-args` codegen option (e.g., `-Cllvm-args=-dfsan-combine-pointer-labels-on-load=false`).
Preserve same vtable pointer when cloning raw waker, to fix Waker::will_wake Fixes rust-lang#121600. As `@jkarneges` identified in rust-lang#121600 (comment), the issue is two different const promotions produce two statics at different addresses, which may or may not later be deduplicated by the linker (in this case not). Prior to rust-lang#119863, the content of the statics was compared, and they were equal. After, the address of the statics are compared and they are not equal. It is documented that `will_wake` _"works on a best-effort basis, and may return false even when the Wakers would awaken the same task"_ so this PR fixes a quality-of-implementation issue, not a correctness issue.
…matthewjasper match lowering: Lower bindings in a predictable order After the recent refactorings, we can now lower bindings in a truly predictable order. The order in rust-lang#120214 was an improvement but not very clear. With this PR, we lower bindings from left to right, with the special case that `x @ pat` is traversed as `pat @ x` (i.e. `x` is lowered after any bindings in `pat`). This description only applies in the absence of or-patterns. Or-patterns make everything complicated, because the binding place depends on the subpattern. Until I have a better idea I leave them to be handled in whatever weird order arises from today's code. r? `@matthewjasper`
…piler-errors Now that inlining, mir validation and const eval all use reveal-all, we won't be constraining hidden types here anymore r? `@compiler-errors` one bubble down, two more to go the test is unrelated, just something I noticed would be good to test in both the old solver and the new.
…, r=compiler-errors `f16` and `f128` step 2: intrinsics Continuation of rust-lang#121728, another portion of rust-lang#114607. This PR adds `f16` and `f128` intrinsics, and hooks them up to both HIR and LLVM. This is all still unexposed to the frontend, which will probably be the next step. Also update itanium mangling per `@rcvalle's` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121728/files#r1506570300, and fix a typo from step 1. Once these types are usable in code, I will add the codegen tests from rust-lang#114607 (codegen is passing on that branch) This does add more `unimplemented!`s to Clippy, but I still don't think we can do better until library support is added. r? `@compiler-errors` cc `@Nilstrieb` `@rustbot` label +T-compiler +F-f16_and_f128
rustbot
added
A-testsuite
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
heh, I think all of these could have some kind of unexpected perf impact or might fail a couple of times in ci, which is why I didn't roll them up so far. |
|
Hah fair, they looked safe enough to me but I don't have your experience. We'll see |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
📌 Perf builds for each rolled up PR:
previous master: 5119208fd7 In the case of a perf regression, run the following command for each PR you suspect might be the cause: |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (0decdac): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Binary sizeResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Bootstrap: 652.82s -> 654.421s (0.25%) |
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.
Successful merges:
f16andf128step 2: intrinsics #121841 (f16andf128step 2: intrinsics)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup