compiler: redescribe llvmlike_vector_align as rust_vector_align#159154
Merged
rust-bors[bot] merged 1 commit intoJul 12, 2026
Merged
Conversation
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
rustbot
added
the
T-compiler
Member
|
Sounds good. I would have no idea how to judge whether something "resembl[ed] the one LLVM would pick", so this description seems more useful. r=me when CI is happy |
This is mostly a cosmetic change. The current form of this function tends to mislead people to assume it is implicitly "correct" in various ways by invoking LLVM as an authority. It is only sort-of correct. More specifically, LLVM mostly doesn't care, and neither do we, except when it comes to FFI. So, we have an arbitrary algorithm that works usefully in most cases. It is not inherently more correct than other arbitrary algorithms, so spell this out and weaken its contract.
workingjubilee
force-pushed
the
rename-llvmlike-vector-align
branch
from
7288c1a to
b10a1e3
Compare
workingjubilee
changed the title
Member
Author
|
@bors r+ |
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Member
|
@bors r- |
rust-bors
Bot
added
the
S-waiting-on-author
Contributor
|
This pull request was unapproved. |
rust-bors
Bot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-bors
Member
|
@bors r+ |
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Member
Author
|
( doh ) |
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2026
Rollup of 3 pull requests Successful merges: - #159125 (`mut` restriction lowering) - #159154 (compiler: redescribe llvmlike_vector_align as rust_vector_align) - #159157 (Better comment the struct used by `{read,write}_unaligned`) Failed merges: - #158732 (Apply MCP 1003 and move diagnostics.rs into its own module)
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2026
Rollup merge of #159154 - workingjubilee:rename-llvmlike-vector-align, r=scottmcm compiler: redescribe llvmlike_vector_align as rust_vector_align This is mostly a cosmetic change. The current form of this function tends to mislead people to assume it is implicitly "correct" in various ways by invoking LLVM as an authority. It is only sort-of correct. More specifically, LLVM mostly doesn't care, and neither do we, except when it comes to FFI. So, we have an arbitrary algorithm that works usefully in most cases. It is not inherently more correct than other arbitrary algorithms, so spell this out and weaken its contract.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
This is mostly a cosmetic change. The current form of this function tends to mislead people to assume it is implicitly "correct" in various ways by invoking LLVM as an authority.
It is only sort-of correct. More specifically, LLVM mostly doesn't care, and neither do we, except when it comes to FFI.
So, we have an arbitrary algorithm that works usefully in most cases. It is not inherently more correct than other arbitrary algorithms, so spell this out and weaken its contract.
r? @scottmcm
I have various mostly-written PRs I was considering stuffing this commit in, including one that actually changes the algorithm as this suggests, but I figured I'd make this change first so that I stop having psychic lock contention.