Document and correct assignment order for yield and inline-asm - #160777
Open
cjgillot wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
Document and correct assignment order for yield and inline-asm#160777cjgillot wants to merge 3 commits into
cjgillot wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
This variant is never constructed.
For `yield` this is not a problem, as nobody uses droppable types a coroutine resume argument. For `inline_asm`, it is delicate to gauge the effect.
Collaborator
|
This PR changes MIR cc @oli-obk, @RalfJung, @JakobDegen, @vakaras |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Collaborator
|
r? @mu001999 rustbot has assigned @mu001999. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The first two commits cleanup and rename the variants of
InitKind.The third commit attempts to make several parts of MIR analyses a bit more consistent.
For calls, we correctly model assignments to happen on the return edge.
For yields, assignments also happen on the return edge according to dataflow analyses (see
TerminatorEdges), but were considered unconditional. This should not change anything, as nobody uses droppable types as coroutine resume argument.For
inline_asm, same thing, dataflow analyses consider assignments to happen ontargetsand not on unwind. This is also corrected. I have no idea what's the impact of this. I suppose user wisely avoid to assign droppable types in inline asm that may unwind.