nounwind tests and cleanup #65346
Merged
nounwind tests and cleanup #65346
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
RalfJung
commented
Oct 12, 2019
| #![crate_type = "lib"] | ||
|
|
||
| // CHECK: Function Attrs: norecurse nounwind | ||
| pub extern fn foo() {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test was pretty useless: it always enabled optimizations, so even if we did not emit nounwind for this function, LLVM would add it. That's why we agreed in #65020 that it could be removed.
54c58ed to
79c623f
Compare
RalfJung
commented
Oct 12, 2019
| // unclear whether there is real value in the assumption this | ||
| // can unwind. The conservatism here may just be papering over | ||
| // a real problem by making some UB a bit harder to hit.) | ||
| true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In #65020 nobody knew why this branch should be needed. And all the tests behave as expected without it. So I think we should remove it.
Centril
reviewed
Oct 12, 2019
nagisa
reviewed
Oct 12, 2019
|
r=me once |
|
r? @nagisa |
|
@bors r=nagisa |
|
📌 Commit 09d7be3 has been approved by |
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2019
nounwind tests and cleanup This is a follow-up to @pnkfelix' rust-lang#65020. In particular it adds some tests as @nagisa asked. It also does a cleanup that the original PR omitted to reduce backporting risks. I hope I finally managed to write an uncontroversial PR in this area. ;) This should not change any behavior, just test it better.
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2019
nounwind tests and cleanup This is a follow-up to @pnkfelix' rust-lang#65020. In particular it adds some tests as @nagisa asked. It also does a cleanup that the original PR omitted to reduce backporting risks. I hope I finally managed to write an uncontroversial PR in this area. ;) This should not change any behavior, just test it better.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2019
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - #65214 (Split non-CAS atomic support off into target_has_atomic_load_store) - #65246 (vxWorks: implement get_path() and get_mode() for File fmt::Debug) - #65312 (improve performance of signed saturating_mul) - #65336 (Fix typo in task::Waker) - #65346 (nounwind tests and cleanup) - #65347 (Fix #[unwind(abort)] with Rust ABI) - #65366 (Implement Error::source on IntoStringError + Remove superfluous cause impls) - #65369 (Don't discard value names when using address or memory sanitizer) - #65370 (Add `dyn` to `Any` documentation) - #65373 (Fix typo in docs for `Rc`) Failed merges: r? @ghost
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.
This is a follow-up to @pnkfelix' #65020. In particular it adds some tests as @nagisa asked. It also does a cleanup that the original PR omitted to reduce backporting risks.
I hope I finally managed to write an uncontroversial PR in this area. ;) This should not change any behavior, just test it better.