Skip to content
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

Rollup of 5 pull requests #74054

Closed
wants to merge 18 commits into from

Conversation

Manishearth
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost

da-x and others added 18 commits June 29, 2020 23:32
The recursive check of `try_print_visible_def_path` did not properly handle
the Rust 2018 case of crate-paths without 'extern crate'. Instead, it returned
a "not found" via (false, self).

This fixes issue rust-lang#56175.
This patch avoids undefined behavior by linking different object files.
Also this would it could be propagated properly to LTO.

See https://reviews.llvm.org/D52322 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D52323.
Co-authored-by: varkor <github@varkor.com>
…-morse

Some refactoring around intrinsic type checking

So... This PR went a bit overboard. I wanted to make the `rustc_peek` intrinsic safe (cc @ecstatic-morse ), and remembered a long-standing itch of mine. So I made that huge `&str` match for the intrinsic name a match on `Symbol`s (so basically `u32`s). This is unlikely to have a positive perf effect, even if it likely has better codegen (intrinsics are used rarely, mostly once in their wrapper), so it's mostly a consistency thing since other places actually match on the symbol name of the intrinsics.
…r=petrochenkov

Fix try_print_visible_def_path for Rust 2018

The recursive check of `try_print_visible_def_path` did not properly handle the Rust 2018 case of crate-paths without 'extern crate'. Instead, it returned a "not found" via (false, self).

 This fixes rust-lang#56175.
…arkor

add `lazy_normalization_consts` feature gate

In rust-lang#71973 I underestimated the amount of code which is influenced by lazy normalization of consts
and decided against having a separate feature flag for this.

Looking a bit more into this, the following issues are already working with lazy norm in its current state rust-lang#47814 rust-lang#57739 rust-lang#73980

I therefore think it is worth it to enable lazy norm separately. Note that `#![feature(const_generics)]` still automatically activates
this feature, so using `#![feature(const_generics, lazy_normalization_consts)]` is redundant.

r? @varkor @nikomatsakis
Add support for storing code model to LLVM module IR

This patch avoids undefined behavior by linking different object files.
Also this would it could be propagated properly to LTO.

See https://reviews.llvm.org/D52322 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D52323.
@Manishearth
Copy link
Member Author

@rustbot modify labels: +rollup
@bors r+ rollup=never p=5

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 5, 2020

📌 Commit 2c50c2c has been approved by Manishearth

@rustbot rustbot added the rollup A PR which is a rollup label Jul 5, 2020
@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 Jul 5, 2020
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 5, 2020

⌛ Testing commit 2c50c2c with merge 2a82dd2539fb65266d4ccc3ed5a629c82673efca...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 5, 2020

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Jul 5, 2020
@JohnTitor
Copy link
Member

Left a comment to the PR that caused the failure, closing.

@JohnTitor JohnTitor closed this Jul 5, 2020
@Manishearth Manishearth deleted the rollup-1ntd6cb branch July 18, 2020 01:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
rollup A PR which is a rollup S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants