-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement RFC 2396: #[target_feature]
1.1
#69274
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
675df06
to
2fb304f
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
46826ec
to
76e4ad7
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
2321921
to
d4c853d
Compare
The job Click to expand the log.
I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
d4c853d
to
b464806
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
b8eb3cc
to
3369087
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
d198a59
to
4bf48a5
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
8b19f74
to
c8713bf
Compare
53d066f
to
7882c32
Compare
7882c32
to
8d9f73a
Compare
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 8d9f73a has been approved by |
Do "target-feature" functions implement the If they do, then it looks like unsoundness because the unsafety check is performed before monomorphization. If they don't, then it means that target-feature functions are still unsafe from the type system point of view, it's just hidden syntactically (and special-cased in the unsafety checker), so the special coercion restriction is not necessary. |
I think you're right, this PR doesn't change that safe function items implement I'd prefer to merge this PR regardless, the changes implemented here will probably be unaffected by whatever we end up doing to solve this soundness problem, and having 90% of an implementation in-tree is better than letting it bit-rot until we figure out the remaining 10%. |
…r=hanna-kruppe Implement RFC 2396: `#[target_feature]` 1.1 Tracking issue: rust-lang#69098 r? @nikomatsakis cc @gnzlbg @joshtriplett
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#69274 (Implement RFC 2396: `#[target_feature]` 1.1) - rust-lang#71767 (doc: make Stack and StackElement a little pretty) - rust-lang#71772 (Mark query function as must_use.) - rust-lang#71777 (cleanup: `config::CrateType` -> `CrateType`) - rust-lang#71784 (Remove recommendation for unmaintained dirs crate) - rust-lang#71785 (Update comment regarding SO_REUSEADDR on Windows) - rust-lang#71787 (fix rustdoc warnings) Failed merges: r? @ghost
Tracking issue: #69098
r? @nikomatsakis
cc @gnzlbg @joshtriplett