Rollup of 8 pull requests #96428
Merged
Rollup of 8 pull requests #96428
Conversation
This file contains 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
Trait impls are still insta-stable yeah...?
…ed indirectly Structs being passed indirectly is suprpising and have a high chance not to work as the device and host usually do not share memory.
…an-DPC Clarify that `Cow::into_owned` returns owned data Two sections of the `Cow::into_owned` docs imply that `into_owned` returns a `Cow`. Clarify that it returns the underlying owned object, either cloned or extracted from the `Cow`.
… r=nagisa Fix codegen bug in "ptx-kernel" abi related to arg passing I found a codegen bug in the nvptx abi related to that args are passed as ptrs ([see comment](rust-lang#38788 (comment))), this is not as specified in the [ptx-interoperability doc](https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/ptx-writers-guide-to-interoperability/) or how C/C++ does it. It will also almost always fail in practice since device/host uses different memory spaces for most hardware. This PR fixes the bug and add tests for passing structs to ptx kernels. I observed that all nvptx assembly tests had been marked as [ignore a long time ago](rust-lang#59752 (comment)). I'm not sure if the new one should be marked as ignore, it passed on my computer but it might fail if ptx-linker is missing on the server? I guess this is outside scope for this PR and should be looked at in a different issue/PR. I only fixed the nvptx64-nvidia-cuda target and not the potential code paths for the non-existing 32bit target. Even though 32bit nvptx is not a supported target there are still some code under the hood supporting codegen for 32 bit ptx. I was advised to create an MCP to find out if this code should be removed or updated. Perhaps ``@RDambrosio016`` would have interest in taking a quick look at this.
Implement Default for AssertUnwindSafe Trait impls are still insta-stable yeah...?
Switch JS code to ES6 Considering it's already quite big, I'll do the remaining files in another PR. Part of rust-lang#93058. r? ``@notriddle``
…t, r=oli-obk Suggest calling method on nested field when struct is missing method Similar to the suggestion to change `x.field` to `x.nested.field`, implement a similar suggestion for when `x.method()` should be replaced with `x.nested.method()`.
simplify `describe_field` func in borrowck's diagnostics part This PR simplify the `describe_field` func in borrowck's diagnostics part, besides fix the FIXME in it.
…an-DPC Correct documentation for `Rvalue::ShallowInitBox` As a part of the big MIR docs PR, I had added a comment indicating that `Rvalue::ShallowInitBox` is disallowed after drop elaboration, but this is not true (no idea why I thought it was). Codegen has support for it, and trying to enforce this rule in the validator causes compiling core to ICE on the very first `box` statement. That being said, this `Rvalue` probably *should* be banned after drop elaboration - it doesn't seem like it's still useful for much. However, I do not have time right now to actually go investigate how difficult a change that is to make, so in the meantime fixing the docs to reflect the current situation seems like the right step. r? rust-lang/mir-opt
Remove references to git.io The git.io service is shutting down soon (see https://github.blog/changelog/2022-04-25-git-io-deprecation/). This removes the references of those short links with the actual destination.
|
@bors: r+ p=8 rollup=never |
|
📌 Commit 223f107 has been approved by |
|
⌛ Testing commit 223f107 with merge 0bcdfacba0ea7c913d79b271a00f71e432f18655... |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
|
@bors retry |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
This was referenced Apr 26, 2022
Merged
|
Finished benchmarking commit (082e4ca): comparison url. Summary:
If you disagree with this performance assessment, please file an issue in rust-lang/rustc-perf. Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression Footnotes |
|
See #95949 (comment) for details; marking as triaged. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Successful merges:
Cow::into_ownedreturns owned data #94022 (Clarify thatCow::into_ownedreturns owned data)describe_fieldfunc in borrowck's diagnostics part #96386 (simplifydescribe_fieldfunc in borrowck's diagnostics part)Rvalue::ShallowInitBox#96400 (Correct documentation forRvalue::ShallowInitBox)Failed merges:
r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup