ignore power alignment rule on unions #147375
Conversation
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
this is also fixed by #142310 |
|
I will register my opinion that I do not think we should fix this by continuing to maintain known-bad code, but I'm not sure I have a good answer for what to do otherwise. |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
That sounds reasonable. |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
What is this?This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.Comparing 8392220 (parent) -> 4fa824b (this PR) Test differencesShow 2 test diffs2 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy. Test dashboardRun cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
test-dashboard 4fa824bb78318a3cba8c7339d5754b4909922547 --output-dir test-dashboardAnd then open Job duration changes
How to interpret the job duration changes?Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (4fa824b): comparison URL. Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countOur most reliable metric. Used to determine the overall result above. However, even this metric can be noisy.
Max RSS (memory usage)This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 471.555s -> 470.653s (-0.19%) |
fixes #147348
The power alignment rule only applies to the non-first field of a struct, and so should not apply to unions at all.
The current code also does not consider enums (whose fields might be, morally, structs). Given that C does not actually have ADTs like this it's probably fine from a compatibility perspective, but I'll leave that to the powerpc folks.
cc @daltenty @gilamn5tr
r? compiler