Don't overwrite CodegenFnAttrs when adding used compiler/linker #99676
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
added
the
T-compiler
|
r? @lcnr (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
eddyb
approved these changes
Jul 24, 2022
|
(oops, the other comments weren't visible at first, was gonna r+ to help out) |
|
@bors p=1 Fixes issues on multiple platforms. |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (530c0a8): comparison url. Instruction count
Max RSS (memory usage)Results
CyclesResults
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. @rustbot label: -perf-regression Footnotes |
This was referenced Jul 26, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Pointed out by @tmiasko in #93718 (comment). Probably a better fix than #99674 for #99596, assuming it does fix the latter.
I don't have the ability to write a regression test for this at the moment, and am quite surprised this didn't cause other failures. The old code is clearly wrong though, but I'm not picky as to which of these is better to go with.