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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
MIR dump: print pointers consistently with Miri output #71590
MIR dump: print pointers consistently with Miri output #71590
Changes from all commits
c427438
19eb934
96cfb20
5163f09
b12faeb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Hmpf, for the common case (offset is
0
, or otherwise small), this seems unnecessarily noisy compared to decimal (due to the prefix).I know @RalfJung doesn't like it, but my preferred approach of printing arbitrary integers involves using a decimal digit when unambiguous (i.e.
<= 9
), and+0
feels unnecessary so I would skip it too.But maybe this won't matter long-term, if we improve our
ty::Const
printing to move beyond the need for these (otherwise really cool!) allocation dumps. (We would need to detect if the allocations are entirely reproducible from the pretty value, and don't have e.g. initialized padding, to avoid losing information)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'm okay introducing a special case for 0, to not print the offset at all.
But
alloc13+4
and elsewherealloc13+0x10
seems oddly inconsistent to me.