Conversation
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
f6f4804 to
4dc11f5
Compare
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #51182) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
2c27df5 to
55a1e92
Compare
|
I found several missing sizedness checking, namely
As adding As these plans are going to be large (for me, at least), I want to have this PR merged for now and prepare different PRs. |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #50338) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #51140) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
This PR seems to be missed, perhaps because it was initially |
|
Ping from triage @aturon! This PR needs your review. |
|
cc @rust-lang/compiler I'm not a suitable reviewer for this, can someone take it? |
|
Ah, r? @nikomatsakis based on a previous comment |
The paragraph described a case where we can't optimize away repetitive dynamic stack allocation. However, as arielb1 pointed out, it can actually optimizable by dynamically delaying the stack unwinding.
|
Rebased. r? @eddyb |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit c488d59 has been approved by |
Implement Unsized Rvalues This PR is the first step to implement RFC1909: unsized rvalues (#48055). ## Implemented - `Sized` is removed for arguments and local bindings. (under `#![feature(unsized_locals)]`) - Unsized locations are allowed in MIR - Unsized places and operands are correctly translated at codegen ## Not implemented in this PR - Additional `Sized` checks: - tuple struct constructor (accidentally compiles now) - closure arguments at closure generation (accidentally compiles now) - upvars (ICEs now) - Generating vtable for `fn method(self)` (ICEs now) - VLAs: `[e; n]` where `n` isn't const - Reduce unnecessary allocations ## Current status - [x] Fix `__rust_probestack` (rust-lang/compiler-builtins#244) - [x] Get the fix merged - [x] `#![feature(unsized_locals)]` - [x] Give it a tracking issue number - [x] Lift sized checks in typeck and MIR-borrowck - [ ] <del>Forbid `A(unsized-expr)`</del> will be another PR - [x] Minimum working codegen - [x] Add more examples and fill in unimplemented codegen paths - [ ] <del>Loosen object-safety rules (will be another PR)</del> - [ ] <del>Implement `Box<FnOnce>` (will be another PR)</del> - [ ] <del>Reduce temporaries (will be another PR)</del>
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
This PR is the first step to implement RFC1909: unsized rvalues (#48055).
Implemented
Sizedis removed for arguments and local bindings. (under#![feature(unsized_locals)])Not implemented in this PR
Sizedchecks:fn method(self)(ICEs now)[e; n]wherenisn't constCurrent status
__rust_probestack(Fix segfault on probestack with dynamic alloca. compiler-builtins#244)#![feature(unsized_locals)]Forbidwill be another PRA(unsized-expr)Loosen object-safety rules (will be another PR)ImplementBox<FnOnce>(will be another PR)Reduce temporaries (will be another PR)