Remove warning about f64->f32 cast being potential UB #49965
Merged
Conversation
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
As discussed in rust-lang#15536, the LLVM documentation incorrect described overflowing f64->f32 casts as being undefined behavior. LLVM never treated them as such, and the documentation has been adjusted in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL329065. As such, this warning can now be removed. Closes rust-lang#49622.
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @nikomatsakis (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Thanks! I don't think there's any value in testing for the absence of a diagnostic, so this is good to merge as-is. @bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit cbabb1b has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2018
Remove warning about f64->f32 cast being potential UB As discussed in rust-lang#15536, the LLVM documentation incorrect described overflowing f64->f32 casts as being undefined behavior. LLVM never treated them as such, and the documentation has been adjusted in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL329065. As such, this warning can now be removed. Closes rust-lang#49622. --- I could not find any existing test checking for this warning. Should I be adding a test for the absence of the warning instead?
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2018
Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #49555 (Inline most of the code paths for conversions with boxed slices) - #49606 (Prevent broken pipes causing ICEs) - #49646 (Use box syntax instead of Box::new in Mutex::remutex on Windows) - #49647 (Remove `underscore_lifetimes` and `match_default_bindings` from active feature list) - #49931 (Fix incorrect span in `&mut` suggestion) - #49959 (rustbuild: allow building tools with debuginfo) - #49965 (Remove warning about f64->f32 cast being potential UB) - #49994 (Remove unnecessary indentation in rustdoc book codeblock.) Failed merges:
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.
As discussed in #15536, the LLVM documentation incorrect described overflowing f64->f32 casts as being undefined behavior. LLVM never treated them as such, and the documentation has been adjusted in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL329065. As such, this warning can now be removed.
Closes #49622.
I could not find any existing test checking for this warning. Should I be adding a test for the absence of the warning instead?