unstable book: in a sanitizer example, check the code #139113
+18
−18
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
|
rustbot has assigned @GuillaumeGomez. Use |
rustbot
added
PG-exploit-mitigations
|
Some changes occurred in src/doc/unstable-book/src/compiler-flags/sanitizer.md cc @rust-lang/project-exploit-mitigations, @rcvalle |
GuillaumeGomez
approved these changes
Mar 30, 2025
|
Nice trick, thanks! @bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
jhpratt
added a commit
to jhpratt/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 30, 2025
…-check-block, r=GuillaumeGomez unstable book: in a sanitizer example, check the code Use some `#` directives to make sure the code checks on x86_64, and does not produce errors on other platforms. This example still used an older version of `#[naked]`, and because the snippet was ignored that was missed before. I'm not sure when this gets built on CI exactly, so it might be worthwhile to try and build it for a non-x86_64 architecture to make sure that works. I'm not sure how to verify locally that e.g. on aarch64 this code works without errors/warnings.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 30, 2025
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#139044 (bootstrap: Avoid cloning `change-id` list) - rust-lang#139111 (Properly document FakeReads) - rust-lang#139113 (unstable book: in a sanitizer example, check the code) - rust-lang#139122 (Remove attribute `#[rustc_error]`) - rust-lang#139132 (Improve hir_pretty for struct expressions.) - rust-lang#139141 (Switch some rustc_on_unimplemented uses to diagnostic::on_unimplemented) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
folkertdev
force-pushed
the
sanitizer-unstable-book-check-block
branch
2 times, most recently
from
acb3898 to
f8bc9ac
Compare
|
platforms are hard... This now runs the example just on x86_64: it already used x86_64 inline assembly, so the code was kind of meaningless on any other platform. The goal of the unstable book is not really to test the behavior, but more that the example compiles and is up-to-date, so this seemed like the best option to me. @rustbot ready I also added a try build to make sure this actually works on non-x86_64. |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
folkertdev
force-pushed
the
sanitizer-unstable-book-check-block
branch
from
f8bc9ac to
0ffa4c6
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
folkertdev
force-pushed
the
sanitizer-unstable-book-check-block
branch
from
0ffa4c6 to
5aec89a
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
this uses some # directives to make sure the code works on x86_64, and does not produce errors on other platforms
folkertdev
force-pushed
the
sanitizer-unstable-book-check-block
branch
from
5aec89a to
1c5c24f
Compare
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.
Use some
#directives to make sure the code checks on x86_64, and does not produce errors on other platforms. This example still used an older version of#[naked], and because the snippet was ignored that was missed before.I'm not sure when this gets built on CI exactly, so it might be worthwhile to try and build it for a non-x86_64 architecture to make sure that works. I'm not sure how to verify locally that e.g. on aarch64 this code works without errors/warnings.
try-job: aarch64-apple