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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Elide superfluous storage markers #99946
Elide superfluous storage markers #99946
Changes from all commits
943a380
162bd16
625af2c
c2b74f9
f8ca6aa
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cc @rust-lang/wg-const-eval I think we could do something similar for internal locals without storage markers in const eval. Basically not eagerly initialize them and also not error when writing to them without marking them as live first.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds like you are suggesting a change to the operational semantics of MIR? I don't quite understand what change you are suggesting, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Somewhat. We'd need to change MIR validation to make sure that internal locals are only referenced after being assigned to first. If that is guaranteed, then it's just an evaluator optimization to lazily initialize internal locals
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We'd also have to make sure that syntactically they are never accessed after the StorageDead, and that they never have their address taken. Otherwise we could miss UB.