-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.1k
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
Make libcore pass -Zvalidate-mir #73175
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
5fe694d
Make libcore pass -Zvalidate-mir
doctorn 1cae892
Add FIXME
doctorn 218eaee
Use `require_lang_item`
doctorn 9df2bc6
Gate paper to only be applied when validating shims
doctorn 82fa79a
Update comments and add check for `Self`
doctorn File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Oh, that's interesting, I thought this would be passed in. But I guess this works, too? I am not very familiar with
InstanceDef
.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.
Have we found any instances where something that is not
Self
is being called? Because then you can also special-case this even further by checking that the callee isty.is_param(0)
, instead of doing a trait query. And we could also only special-case the specific call shims we care about.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.
I don't think we have, but I think that this approach is a little more liberal in the sense that it allows shim implementations to change without changing the assumptions we require here - there's definitely a trade-off here 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.
Shims shouldn't grow more ways to violate the assumptions we make here, they should only change so they use an
FnDef
instead ofSelf
as the callee eventually, fixing the underlying issueThere 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.
I mean to say that another class of shim could be introduced or a previously monomorphic shim could be made polymorphic
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.
I agree it's tidier to check
ty.is_param(0)
, but we really would likeSelf
to implementFnOnce
right? It would almost certainly be malformed MIR if it didn'tThere 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.
All I can think at the moment is that we include both checks?
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.
That would work too
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.
Ah, you can just compare with
tcx.types.self_param
too