Skip to content

Rollup of 5 pull requests #98058

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
wants to merge 23 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

Dylan-DPC
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup

Create a similar rollup

oli-obk and others added 23 commits May 25, 2022 07:30
Adds some additional crates used by Creusot.
…7bb86ba3019'

git-subtree-dir: compiler/rustc_smir
git-subtree-mainline: fb19760
git-subtree-split: 9abcb5c
Add WIP stable MIR crate

r? `@pnkfelix`

Discussion about this happend in the SMIR meeting yesterday. Some info can be found at https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/320896-project-stable-mir/topic/dev.20plan.20mtg/near/283774691
[RFC 2011] Minimal initial implementation

Tracking issue: rust-lang#44838
Third step of rust-lang#96496

Implementation has ~290 LOC with the bare minimum to be in a functional state. Currently only searches for binary operations to mimic what `assert_eq!` and `assert_ne!` already do.

r? `@oli-obk`
interpret: unify offset_from check with offset check

`offset` does the check with a single `check_ptr_access` call while `offset_from` used two calls. Make them both just one one call.

I originally intended to actually factor this into a common function, but I am no longer sure if that makes a lot of sense... the two functions start with pretty different precondition (e.g. `offset` *knows* that the 2nd pointer has the same provenance).

I also reworded the UB messages a little. Saying it "cannot" do something is not how we usually phrase UB (as far as I know). Instead it's not *allowed* to do that.

r? ````@oli-obk````
…_update_is_probably_complete, r=oli-obk

Make `type_changing_struct_update` no longer an incomplete feature

After rust-lang#97705, I don't see what would make it incomplete anymore. `check_expr_struct_fields` seems to now implement the RFC to the letter.

r? ````@nikomatsakis````
cc ````@rust-lang/types````
[issues:97981] del unrelated comment

fixes rust-lang#97981
summary: del unrelated comment
@rustbot rustbot added T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. rollup A PR which is a rollup labels Jun 13, 2022
@Dylan-DPC
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 13, 2022

📌 Commit a5f53d4 has been approved by Dylan-DPC

@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Jun 13, 2022
@matthiaskrgr
Copy link
Member

gonna leave this open in case #98060 fails for now

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 13, 2022

⌛ Testing commit a5f53d4 with merge 69e89b7077936fae618043a14a2051ce1265c9a9...

@rust-log-analyzer
Copy link
Collaborator

A job failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.