Skip to content

Drop support for missing MIR #211

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Closed
2 tasks done
oli-obk opened this issue Jun 23, 2017 · 8 comments · Fixed by #566
Closed
2 tasks done

Drop support for missing MIR #211

oli-obk opened this issue Jun 23, 2017 · 8 comments · Fixed by #566
Labels
C-project Category: a larger project is being tracked here, usually with checkmarks for individual steps

Comments

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Jun 23, 2017

Stuff to do

  • use exchange_malloc in the box unop
  • remove the hacks that catch some common missing MIR functions
@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Jun 23, 2017

cc @RalfJung

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

Sounds fair enough. I am not sure about the first point -- I actually feel like miri really should have some more sophisticated logging infrastructure, so that I can selectively turn on/off tracing for different modules or so. And some things are pretty hard to see despite all the verbosity of a full trace, like which arguments are passed on a function call.

I suppose this is blocked by #202?

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Jun 23, 2017

You can already do the module-wise logging. We use env_logger

@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

Okay so it's mostly a matter of documentation then. And maybe of organizing things do that the outputs of individual modules make more sense. ;) Like, I may want to say "trace instructions that are executed", which should exactly print every stmt and terminator that is executed, and nothing else. But I don't want to see details like symbol resolution or vtable caches.

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Aug 2, 2017

We can remove the blocker on #202 by

a) adding appveyor and a travis mac build
b) enabling MIR generation unconditionally for the standard library
c) fixing rust-lang/rust#36501

Though a) would remove the feature that miri can easily interpret stuff for other targets.

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Sep 27, 2017

One checkbox solved by #351

@RalfJung RalfJung added C-enhancement Category: a PR with an enhancement or an issue tracking an accepted enhancement C-project Category: a larger project is being tracked here, usually with checkmarks for individual steps and removed K-refactor labels Nov 17, 2018
@RalfJung
Copy link
Member

RalfJung commented Dec 2, 2018

I think we are basically ready to do this -- except that #202 is still open. @oli-obk do you think that should block this? Can we at least get a Travis runner with a 32bit platform to make sure those are covered for a unix system as well?

Also you added "add some flag to not report the libstd boilerplate in MIRI_LOG" to the list. That'd be nice to have but I'd prefer to not block on this, and open an issue instead.

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor Author

oli-obk commented Dec 3, 2018

I moved it out to a separate issue.

@RalfJung RalfJung added C-project Category: a larger project is being tracked here, usually with checkmarks for individual steps and removed C-project Category: a larger project is being tracked here, usually with checkmarks for individual steps C-enhancement Category: a PR with an enhancement or an issue tracking an accepted enhancement labels Jul 1, 2019
erickt pushed a commit to erickt/miri that referenced this issue Feb 4, 2022
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
C-project Category: a larger project is being tracked here, usually with checkmarks for individual steps
Projects
None yet
3 participants